UC-NRLF 


B    3    TMT    7TM 


LIBRARY 

OF    THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 
Class 


1 


/ 


THE 

GOSPEL  AND  THE   CHURCH 


THE   GOSPEL  AND 
THE    CHURCH 


BY 

ALFRED    LOISY 


TRANSLATED    BY 

CHRISTOPHER   HOME 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1904 


^■i  Da 


CONTENTS 


Introduction 

I.  The  Sources  op  the  Gospels 

II.  The  Kingdom  op  Heaven 

III.  The  Son  op  God  . 

IV.  The  Church 
V.  The  Christian  Dogma 

VI.  The  Catholic  Worship 


1 
23 
53 

88 
139 
180 
22G 


\  r^f  PA/? 

or    -HE 

UNiVtKSITY 

or 


THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE 
CHURCH 

INTRODUCTION 

The  lectures  of  Herr  A.  Harnack  on  the  essence 
of  Christianity  ^  have  made  considerable  stir  in 
the  Protestant  world,  particularly  in  Germany. 
Embodying  the  profession  of  a  personal  faith  in 
the  form  of  a  historical  review,  they  answered 
without  doubt  to  the  needs  of  many  minds,  and 
summarized  a  whole  group  of  ideas  in  such  a  way 
as  to  make  a  satisfactory  meeting-ground  for 
several  forms  of  belief.  But  the  votes  of  the 
theologians  have  been  divided.  Some  have 
formulated  reservations,  others  have  criticized 
sharply  a  definition  of  Christianity  which  elimi- 
nates from  its  essence  almost  everything  that  is 
regarded  ordinarily  as  Cliristian  belief. 

No  doubt  this  work  would  have  attracted  more 
*  "  Das  Wosen  des  Christentums."     Leipzig,  1900. 

B 


2  THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

attention  in  France  and  even  among  Catholics, 
had  it  not  followed  the  "  Esquisse  d'une  philo- 
sophic de  la  religion  "  of  M.  A.  Sabatier,  a  book 
strongly  resembling  it  in  point  of  view  and  in 
conclusions.  However,  a  French  translation  has 
recently  been  published,  and  already  some  of  the 
Catholic  reviews  have  drawn  the  attention  of 
their  readers  to  it,  giving  analyses  of  its  contents 
while  insisting  on  the  need  of  certain  amend- 
ments. The  originality  of  such  a  theologico- 
historical  synthesis  strikes  the  intelligence,  at  a 
time  when  science  is  becoming  erudite  and  dis- 
trustful of  generalizing  theories,  when  religious 
problems  are  discussed  from  a  point  of  view  that 
may  be  called  purely  phenomenal,  when  many 
think  theology  a  vain  thing,  whilst  others,  on  the 
contrary,  regard  it  still  as  too  divine  to  be  con- 
cerned with  all  that  rash  investigators  relate  of 
its  past.  It  may  possibly  be  of  some  use  to 
examine  this  work  attentively,  not  so  much  with 
the  object  of  refuting  it,  as  of  determining  its 
exact  historical  position. 

The  aim  of  the  work,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is 
just  to  catch  the  point  of  view  of  history.  In  no 
sense  is  it  an  attempt  to  write  an  apologia  for 
Catholicism  or  traditional  dogma.  Had  it  been 
so  intended,  it  must  have  been  regarded  as  very 


INTRODUCTION  3 

defective  and  incomplete,  especially  as  far  as 
concerns  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  authority 
of  the  Church.  It  is  not  designed  to  demonstrate 
the  truth  either  of  the  gospel  or  of  Catholic 
Christianity,  but  simply  to  analyze  and  define 
the  bonds  that  unite  the  two  in  history.  He  who 
reads  in  good  faith  will  not  be  misled. 

Since  the  learned  professor  announces  his  work 
as  historical,  it  shall  be  discussed  solely  according 
to  the  data  of  history.  M.  Sabatier  sets  down 
psychology,  side  by  side  with  history,  as  the 
source  of  his  religious  philosophy.  Herr  Harnack 
appeals,  above  all,  to  facts ;  he  sets  forth  less  a 
religious  philosophy,  than  a  religion,  or  rather 
ilic  religion,  in  the  sole  and  unchangeable  principle 
he  deems  to  constitute  it;  this  principle  he 
extracts  from  the  gospel,  and  uses  as  a  touch- 
stone to  test  the  whole  Christian  development, 
which  is  held  of  worth  only  in  so  far  as  this 
precious  essence  has  been  preserved  in  it.  The 
whole  doctrine  of  the  book  is  based  on  tliis 
fundamental  point ;  that  the  essence  of  the  gospel 
consists  solely  in  faith  in  God  the  Father,  as 
revealed  by  Jesus  Christ.  On  the  validity  or 
insufficiency  of  this  principle  depends  tlie  value  of 
the  judgments  delivered  on  the  Evolution  of  the 
Church,  of  Her  dogmas,  and  of  Her  worship,  from 


4    THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  beginning,  and  in  all  the  different  forms  of 
creed  that  are  founded  on  the  gospel  and  the 
name  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  surprising  therefore, 
that  from  the  first  a  certain  anxiety  should  be 
felt,  to  see  a  movement  as  far  reaching  as 
Christianity,  based  on  a  single  idea  or  a  solitary 
sentiment.  Is  this  really  the  definition  of  a 
historical  reality,  or  merely  a  systematic  method 
of  consideration  ?  Can  a  religion  that  has  filled 
such  a  place  in  history,  and  renewed,  so  to  speak, 
the  conscience  of  humanity,  take  its  origin  and 
derive  its  whole  value  from  a  sino^le  thouo^ht  ? 
Can  this  great  force  be  made  up  of  one  element  ? 
Can  such  a  fact  be  other  than  complex  ?  Is  the 
definition  of  Christianity,  put  forward  by  Herr 
Harnack,  that  of  a  historian  or  merely  that  of  a 
theologian  who  takes  from  history  as  much  as 
suits  his  theology  ?  The  theory  set  forth  in  the 
lectures  on  the  essence  of  Christianity,  is  the  same 
theory  that  dominates  the  author's  learned  history 
of  dogma.^  But  is  the  theory  actually  deduced 
from  history  ?  Is  not  history  rather  interpreted  by 
the  light  of  the  theory  ? 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Eenan,^  with  some 
lack  of  reverence,  compared  the  liberal  theologian 

1  "Lehrbuch  derDogmengeschichte,"i.-ii.,1894;  iii.,1897. 

2  '*  Vie  de  Jesus,"  13,  ix.-x 


INTRODUCTION  5 

to  a  bird  whose  wings  have  been  clipped  ;  as  long 
as  it  remains  at  rest,  its  attitude  is  natural,  but 
when    it    attempts    to    fly,   its    movements   are 
hampered.     This    comparison    of    the   author    of 
"Origines   du   Christianisme,"  was   directed   not 
against  Catholic  theologians,  who,  like  orthodox 
Protestants,    resemble   caged   birds,    but    against 
certain  rationalist  professors,  who  unite  the  most 
absolute    and  daring   theories    to  a  criticism   so 
minute,  that  one  would  expect  thek  general  con- 
clusions to  be  founded  on  experience.    The  remark 
of  Eenan  is  not  an  axiom  beyond  discussion.    There 
is  no  fundamental   incompatibility  between   the 
professions  of  theologian  and  historian.     Possibly, 
there  have  already  existed  theologians  who  could 
be  also  liistorians,  that  is,  could  deal  with  facts  as 
they  appear  from  evidence  intelligently  investi- 
gated, without  introducing  their  own  conceptions 
into  the  texts  they  explored,  and  able   to   take 
account  of  the  change  that  the  ideas  of  past  times 
inevitably    undergo    when    adapted    to    modern 
thought.     But    it   must  be   admitted   that   there 
have   been,    and   always   will   be,   a   far   greater 
number,   who,    starting    from    a   general    system, 
furnished   by  tradition,    or   elaborated   by  them- 
selves under  the   influence   of   tradition,  uncon- 
sciously, or  perhaps  sometimes  consciously,  bend 


6  THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  texts  and  the  facts  to  the  needs  of  their  doctrine 
though  often  honestly  believing  they  avoid  the 
danger.  It  must  be  added  that  the  adversaries 
of  the  theologians  have  often  brought  to  the 
discussion  of  these  matters  of  religious  history, 
prejudices  acquired  before  the  examination  of  the 
facts,  prejudices  that  can  interfere  with  calm  and 
just  investigation,  fully  as  much  as  any  theological 
bias. 

At  bottom,  M.  Sabatier  and  Herr  Harnack  have 
wished  to  reconcile  Christian  faith  with  the  claims 
of  science  and  of  the  scientific  spirit  of  our  time. 
The  claims  must  indeed  have  become  great,  or  be 
believed  to  be  great,  for  the  faith  has  become  very 
small  and  modest.  What  would  Luther  have 
thought  of  his  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith,  had 
it  been  presented  to  him  with  the  amendment, 
"independently  of  creeds,"  or  with  this  other — 
"  Faith  in  a  merciful  Father,  for  faith  in  the  Son 
is  no  part  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  "  ?  Eeligion  is 
thus  reconciled  with  science,  because  it  no  longer 
encounters  it.  This  trust  in  the  goodness  of  God 
either  exists  in  a  man  or  it  does  not;  but  it 
seems  impossible  for  a  sentiment  to  contradict 
any  conclusion  of  biblical  or  philosophical  criti- 
cism. 

However,  this  negative  reconciliation  is  perhaps 


INTRODUCTION  7 

less  solid  than  it  seems.    Every  absolute  assertion 
that   defies  the  control   of  the   intelligence   can 
become,  at  one  moment  or  another,  an  obstacle 
to   the   free   and   legitimate   course   of    thought. 
Although  this  minimum  of  faith,  extracted  from 
the  Bible,  seems   to   authorize   a   complete   and 
unlimited  liberty  in  biblical  criticism,  it  would 
nevertheless  prove  an  obstacle  to  the  exercise  of 
that  liberty,  and  an  obstacle  the  more  serious  just 
where  the  exercise  is  most  indispensable,  namely, 
in  regard  to  the  gospel,  if  by  chance  this  mini- 
mum were  not  to  be  found  in  the  gospel,  or  not 
in  the  sense   in  which  the  gospel  is  understood. 
Those  who  would   compel  themselves  to  see   it 
there,   would   be   forced   no   longer   to    take  the 
gospel  as  it  stands.     It  has  been  said  for  a  long 
time,  and  with  reason,  that  the  dogma  of  biblical 
inspiration,  in  so  far  as  it  presented  the  Bible  as 
a  book  whose  truth  knew  no  limit,  nor  imperfec- 
tion, nor  shades  of  meaning,  and  as  a  book  full  of 
the  absolute  science  of  God,  prevented  the  per- 
ception of  the  real  and  historical  sense  of  the 
Scriptures;    but  as  much  might   be  said  of  the 
conviction,    arrived    at    before     examination    of 
the  facts,  or  from  motives  other  than  historical, 
that  a  certain  religious  system,  that  is  believed 
to  be  true,  must  have  been  the  gospel  of  Christ. 


8  THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

The  gospel  has  au  existence  independent  of  us  ; 
let  us  try  to  understand  it  in  itself,  before  we 
interpret  it  in  the  light  of  our  preferences  and 
our  needs. 

In  seeking  to  determine  historically  the  essence 
of  the  gospel,  the  rules  of  a  healthy  criticism 
forbid  the  resolution  to  regard  as  non-essential  all 
that  to-day  must  be  judged  uncertain  or  unaccept- 
able. That  which  has  been  essential  in  the 
gospel  of  Jesus,  is  all  that  holds  the  first  and 
most  considerable  place  in  His  authentic  teaching, 
the  ideas  for  which  He  strove  and  for  which  He 
died,  not  only  such  part  of  them  as  is  held  to  be 
vital  to-day.  In  the  same  way,  to  define  the 
essence  of  primitive  Christianity,  we  must  seek 
the  dominant  preoccupation  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians, and  all  that  theii*  religion  lived  by.  After 
applying  the  same  analytical  procedure  to  all 
epochs  successively,  and  comparing  the  results, 
we  can  determine  if  Christianity  has  remained 
faithful  to  the  law  of  its  origin;  if  the  basis  of 
Catholicism  to-day  is  that  which  supported  the 
Church  of  the  Middle  Ages,  or  the  early  centuries, 
and  if  that  basis  is  substantially  identical  with 
the  gospel  of  Jesus ;  or  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  clear  light  of  the  gospel  was  soon  obscured, 
to  be  freed  from  the  darkness  in  the  sixteenth 


INTRODUCTION  9 

century,  or  only  in  our  own  time.  If  any  common 
features  have  been  preserved  or  developed  in  the 
Church  from  its  origin  till  to-day,  these  features 
constitute  the  essence  of  Christianity.  At  least, 
the  historian  can  take  account  of  no  others ;  he 
has  no  right  to  apply  to  Christianity  a  method 
that  he  would  not  apply  to  any  other  religion 
whatsoever.  To  decide  the  essence  of  Maho- 
metanism,  we  should  take  from  the  teaching  of 
Mahomet  and  the  Mussulman  tradition  not  what 
we  judge  to  be  true  and  fruitful,  but  all  that 
seemed  most  important  to  the  prophet  and  his 
followers  in  matters  of  faith,  morality,  and 
worship.  Otherwise,  with  a  little  good  will, 
the  essence  of  the  Koran  could  readily  be  dis- 
covered to  be  identical  with  the  essence  of  the 
gospel — faith  in  a  benign  and  merciful  God. 

Further,  there  would  be  little  logic  in  taking 
for  the  whole  essence  of  one  religion  the  points 
that  differentiate  it  from  another.  The  monothe- 
istic faith  is  common  to  Judaism,  Christianity,  and 
Mahometanism ;  but  we  are  not  therefore  to  con- 
clude that  the  essential  features  of  these  three 
religions  must  be  sought  apart  from  the  mono- 
theistic conception.  No  Jew,  no  Christian,  no 
Mussulman  will  admit  that  his  faith  in  one  God 
is  other  than  the  first  and  principal  article  of  his 


lo        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

belief.  Each  will  criticize  the  particular  form 
that  the  idea  receives  in  the  creed  of  his  neighbour, 
but  none  will  deny  that  monotheism  is  an  element 
of  his  own  religion  on  the  ground  that  it  belongs 
also  to  the  religion  of  others.  The  essential  dis- 
tinction between  religions  lies  in  their  differences, 
but  it  is  not  solely  of  their  differences  that  they 
are  constituted. 

It  is,  therefore,  in  the  highest  degree  arbitrary 
to  decide  that  Christianity  in  its  essence  must  be 
all  that  the  gospel  has  not  borrowed  of  Judaism, 
as  if  all  that  the  gospel  has  retained  of  the  Jewish 
tradition  must  be  necessarily  of  secondary  value. 
Herr  Harnack  finds  it  quite   natural  to  place  the 
essence  of   Christianity  in  the  faith  in  God  the 
Father,  because  he  supposes,  somewhat  hastily  by 
the  way,  that  this  element  of  the  gospel  is  foreign 
to  the  Old  Testament.     Even  if  the   hypothesis 
were  well  founded  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it 
would  not  be  legitimate.     It  might  present  itself 
to  the  mind  of  a  Protestant  theologian,  for  whom 
the  word  "  tradition  "  is  synonymous  with  "  Catho- 
licism "  and  "  error,"  and  who  rejoices  to  think 
that  the  gospel  was  the  protestantism  of  the  law. 
But  the  historian  can  see  in  it  only  an  assertion, 
whose  proof  is  still  to  seek.     Jesus  has  claimed 
not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfil.     We  should, 


INTRODUCTION  ii 

therefore,  expect  to  find  in  Judaism  and  in 
Christianity  elements  common  to  both,  equally- 
essential  to  both,  the  difference  between  the  two 
religions  lying  in  that  "  fulfilment "  which  is  the 
special  feature  of  the  gospel,  and  should  form 
with  the  common  elements  the  whole  essence  of 
Christianity.  The  importance  of  these  elements 
depends  neither  on  their  antiquity  nor  on  their 
novelty,  but  on  the  place  they  fill  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  and  on  the  value  Jesus  himself  attached 
to  them. 

The  essence  of  the  gospel  can  only  be  deter- 
mined by  a  critical  discussion  of  the  gospel  texts, 
the  most  sure  and  most  clearly  expressed  texts, 
and  not  those  whose  authenticity  or  whose  mean- 
ing may  be  doubtful.  To  build  a  general  theory 
of  Christianity  on  a  small  number  of  texts  of 
moderate  authority,  neglecting  the  mass  of  incon- 
testable texts  of  clear  significance,  would  be  to 
sin  against  the  most  elementary  principles  of 
criticism.  Following  such  a  method,  a  more  or 
less  specious  doctrinal  synthesis  might  be  offered 
to  the  public,  but  not  the  essence  of  Christianity 
according  to  the  gospel.  Herr  Harnack  has  not 
avoided  this  danger,  for  his  definition  of  the 
essence  of  Christianity  is  not  based  on  the  totality 
of  authentic  texts,  but  rests,  when  analyzed,  on  a 


12        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

very  small  number  of  texts,  practically  indeed  on 
two  passages : — "  No  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but 
the  Father :  neither  knoweth  any  man  tlie  Father, 
save  the  Son,"^  and  "The  kingdom  of  God  is 
within  you,"  ^  both  of  them  passages  that  might 
well  have  been  influenced,  if  not  produced,  by 
the  theology  of  the  early  times.  This  critical  pre- 
possession might  thus  have  exposed  the  author 
to  the  misfortune,  supreme  for  a  Protestant  theo- 
logian, of  having  founded  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity upon  data  supplied  by  Christian  tradition. 
No  great  harm  would  be  done,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  history,  if  it  were  not  that  these  texts 
are  isolated  by  having  preference  given  to  them 
over  the  others.  It  must  be  admitted  that  it  is 
often  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  personal 
religion  of  Jesus  and  the  way  in  which  His  dis- 
ciples have  understood  it,  between  the  thought  of 
the  Master  and  the  interpretations  of  apostolic 
tradition.  If  Christ  had  Himself  drawn  up  a 
statement  of  His  doctrine,  and  a  summary  of  His 
prophecy,  a  detailed  treatise  on  His  work.  His 
mission.  His  hopes,  the  historian  would  submit  it 
to  a  most  attentive  examination,  and  would  deter- 
mine the  essence  of  the  gospel,  according  to 
irrefutable  testimony.  But  no  such  treatise  has 
»  Matt.  xi.  27.  «  Luke  xvii.  21. 


INTRODUCTION  13 

ever  existed,  and  nothing  can  take  its  place.  In 
the  Gospels  there  remains  but  an  echo,  necessarily 
weakened  and  a  little  confused,  of  the  words  of 
Jesus,  the  general  impression  He  produced  upon 
hearers  well  disposed  towards  Him,  with  some  of 
the  more  striking  of  His  sentences,  as  they  were 
understood  and  interpreted ;  and  finally  there 
remains  the  movement  which  He  initiated. 

Whatever  we  think,  theologically,  of  tradition, 
whether  we  trust  it  or  regard  it  with  suspicion, 
we  know  Christ  only  by  the  tradition,  across  the 
tradition,  and  in  the  tradition  of  the  primitive 
Christians.  This  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  Christ 
is  inseparable  from  His  work,  and  that  the 
attempt  to  define  the  essence  of  Christianity 
according  to  the  pure  gospel  of  Jesus,  apart  from 
tradition,  cannot  succeed,  for  the  mere  idea  of  the 
gospel  without  tradition  is  in  flagrant  contra- 
diction with  the  facts  submitted  to  criticism. 
This  state  of  affairs,  being  natural  in  the  highest 
degree,  has  nothing  in  it  disconcerting  for  the 
historian  :  for  the  essence  of  Christianity  must 
be  in  the  work  of  Jesus,  or  nowhere,  and  would 
be  vainly  sought  in  scattered  fragments  of  His 
discourse.  If  a  faith,  a  hope,  a  feeling,  an  im- 
pulse of  will,  dominates  the  gospel  and  is  per- 
petuated in  the  Church  of  the  earliest  times,  there 


V 


14        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

will  be  the  essence  of  Christianity,  subject  to 
such  reservations  as  must  be  made  on  the  literal 
authenticity  of  certain  words,  and  on  such  more 
or  less  notable  modifications  that  the  thought  of 
Jesus  must  of  necessity  have  endured  in  trans- 
mission from  generation  to  generation.^ 

"The  essences  of  things  are  unchangeable," 
said  the  ancient  philosophy,  when  considering  the 
eternal  types  of  contingent  realities.  To  deter- 
mine such  an  essence  in  Christianity,  it  must  be 
transformed  into  a  metaphysical  entity,  into  a 
logical  quintessence,  into  something  resembling 
the  scholastic  notion  of  species,  that  certain  theo- 
logians still  fear  to  corrupt  by  admitting  the  idea 
of  evolution.  Herr  Harnack  seems  also  to  fear 
that  his  essence  of  Christianity  might  be  spoiled 
if  he  introduced  into  it  any  idea  of  life,  of  move- 
ment and  development.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
distrusts  abstract  essences,  and  has  taken  care  not 
to  give  any  theoretical  definition  of  religion, 
which  should  be  at  the  same  time  a  definition  of 
Christianity,  although  he  maintains  the  Hegelian 
proposition  that  Christianity  is  the  one  absolute 
religion.  He  finds  the  essence  of  Christianity 
in  a    sentiment — filial    confidence   in    God,   the 

1  Of.  E.  Caird,  "  Christianity  and  the  Historical  Christ," 
The  New  World,  vi.  21  (March,  1897),  pp.  7,  8. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

merciful  Father.  Therein  is  to  lie  all  religion 
and  all  Christianity.  The  identity  of  this  senti- 
ment in  Jesus  and  in  all  Christians,  is  to  consti- 
tute the  continuity  of  the  religion  and  the 
unchangeableness  of  its  essence. 

But  is  this  essence,  even  in  these  reduced  pro- 
portions, actually  unchangeable,  and  why  should 
it  be  ?  Has  the  Divine  mercy  been  understood 
in  absolutely  the  same  way  by  the  apostles  and 
by  Herr  Harnack  ?  The  apostles  had  a  concep- 
tion of  the  world,  and  even  of  God  the  merciful, 
somewhat  different  from  the  idea  that  is  suggested 
in  the  peroration  of  ''  The  Essence  of  Christianity." 
Now,  sentiment  is  not  independent  of  thought; 
if  the  idea  change,  the  form  of  the  sentiment 
will  also  change,  though  the  sentiment  retains  its 
first  direction,  because  of  the  spirit  that  sustains 
it ;  and  if  on  this  point  (the  Divine  merciful 
Fatherhood)  the  attitude  of  Christianity  is  held 
to  be  unchanged,  because  it  retains  the  direction 
and  the  impulse  of  Christ,  why  should  not  its 
attitude  towards  other  points  be  held  unchanged 
for  the  same  reason  ?  What,  for  instance,  of  the 
hope  of  an  eternal  kingdom,  constantly  preached 
by  Christ,  and  never  allowed  to  perish  by  the 
Christian  Church  ?  What  of  the  mission  of  the 
apostles  charged  to  propagate  this  hope  ?     What 


i6        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

of  Christ  Himself,  Whose  place  as  Messiah 
belongs  to  the  Primitive  Church,  and  has  never 
ceased  to  occupy  the  thought  of  the  Church  from 
the  beginning  ?  What  of  all  the  different  themes 
of  evangelical  teaching,  of  which  not  one  has 
been  regarded  during  the  Christian  centuries  as 
accessory  ?  All  these  elements  of  Christianity, 
in  all  the  forms  in  which  they  have  been  pre- 
served, why  should  they  not  be  the  essence  of 
Christianity  ?  Why  not  find  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  fulness  and  totality  of  its  life, 
which  shows  movement  and  variety  just  because 
it  is  life,  but  inasmuch  as  it  is  life  proceeding 
from  an  obviously  powerful  principle,  has  grown 
in  accordance  with  a  law  which  affirms  at  every 
step  the  initial  force  that  may  be  called  its  physi- 
cal essence  revealed  in  all  its  manifestations  ? 
Why  should  the  essence  of  a  tree  be  held  to  be 
but  a  particle  of  the  seed  from  which  it  has 
sprung,  and  why  should  it  not  be  recognized  as 
truly  and  fully  in  the  complete  tree  as  in  the 
germ  ?  Are  the  processes  of  assimilation  by 
which  it  grows  to  be  regarded  as  an  alteration  of 
the  essence  present  potentially  in  the  seed,  and 
are  they  not  rather  the  indispensable  conditions 
of  its  being,  its  preservation,  its  progress  in  a  life 
always  the  same  and  incessantly  renewed  ? 


INTRODUCTION  17 

The  historian  cannot  but  refuse  to  recrard  as 
the  essence  of  living  Christianity  a  germ  that 
multiplies  without  growing.  Eather  he  should 
return  to  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed,  com- 
paring the  new-born  Christianity  to  a  little  grain 
The  grain  was  small,  for  the  new  religion  was 
without  the  prestige  of  antiquity  enjoyed  by  the 
ancient  religions,  still  surviving,  of  Egypt  and 
Chaldea;  it  was  less,  in  external  power,  than 
Greco- Roman  paganism :  it  was  even  less,  appa- 
rently, than  Judaism,  of  which  it  must  have 
seemed  a  variety,  with  no  future,  since  Judaism 
rejected  it.  This  grain,  nevertheless,  enclosed  the 
germ  of  the  tree  that  we  now  see;  charity  was 
its  sap:  its  life  impulse  was  in  the  hope  of  its 
triumph ;  its  expanding  force  was  in  its  apostle- 
ship,  its  pledge  of  success  in  sacrifice :  for  its 
general  form  this  budding  religion  had  its  faith  in 
the  unity  and  absolute  Sovereignty  of  God,  and  for 
its  particular  and  distinctive  feature  that  faith  in 
the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus,  which  earned  it  its 
name  of  Christianity.  All  tlus  was  in  the  little 
seed,  and  all  this  was  the  real  essence  of  the 
Christian  religion,  needing  only  space  to  grow  to 
reach  its  present  point,  still  living  after  all  its 
crrowth. 

To  understand  the  essence  of  Christianity  we 

0 


i8        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

must  look  to  those  vital  manifestations  which 
contain  its  reality,  its  permanent  quintessence, 
recognizable  in  them,  as  the  principal  features  of 
primitive  Christianity  are  recognizable  throughout 
their  development.  The  particular  and  varied  forms 
of  the  development,  in  so  far  as  they  are  varied,  are 
not  of  the  essence  of  Christianity,  but  they  follow 
one  another,  as  it  were,  in  a  framework  whose 
general  proportions,  though  not  absolutely  constant, 
never  cease  to  be  balanced,  so  that  if  the  figure 
change,  its  type  does  not  vary,  nor  the  law  that 
governs  its  evolution.  The  essence  of  Christianity 
is  constituted  by  the  general  features  of  this  figure, 
the  elements  of  this  life  and  their  characteristic 
properties  ;  and  this  essence  is  unchangeable,  like 
that  of  a  living  being,  which  remains  the  same 
while  it  lives,  and  to  the  extent  to  which  it  lives. 
The  historian  will  find  that  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity has  been  more  or  less  preserved  in  the 
different  Christian  communions :  he  will  not 
believe  it  to  be  compromised  by  the  development 
of  institutions,  of  creeds,  and  of  worship,  so  long 
as  this  development  has  been  ruled  by  the  prin- 
ciples verified  in  the  first  commencement.  He 
will  not  expect  this  essence  to  have  been  abso- 
lutely and  definitely  realized  at  any  point  of  past 
centuries ;  he  will  believe  that  it  has  been  realized 


INTRODUCTION  19 

more  or  less  perfectly  from  the  beginning,  and 
that  it  will  continue  to  be  realized  thus  more 
and  more,  so  long  as  Christianity  shall  endure. 

Herr  Harnack  does  not  conceive  Christianity 
as  a  seed,  at  first  a  plant  in  potentiality,  then  a 
real  plant,  identical  from  the  beginning  of  its 
evolution  to  the  final  limit  and  from  the  root 
to  the  summit  of  the  stem,  but  as  a  fruit,  ripe, 
or  rather  overripe,  that  must  be  peeled,  to  reach 
the  incorruptible  kernel;  and  Herr  Harnack 
peels  his  fruit  with  such  perseverance,  that  the 
question  arises  if  anything  will  remain  at  the  end. 
This  method  of  dismembering  a  subject  does  not 
belong  to  history,  which  is  a  science  of  observa- 
tion of  the  living,  not  of  dissection  of  the  dead. 
Historical  analysis  notices  and  distinguishes,  it 
does  not  destroy  what  it  touches,  nor  think  all 
movement  digression,  and  all  growth  deformity.  It 
is  not  by  stripping  Christianity  leaf  by  leaf  that 
the  law  of  its  life  will  be  found.  Such  a  dissec- 
tion leads  of  necessity  to  a  special  theory,  of 
philosophical  value  doubtless,  but  of  little  account 
from  the  positive  standpoint  of  history.  It  is 
not  for  the  theologian  (unless  in  quite  a  personal 
exercise  of  his  intelligence),  and  still  less  is  it  for 
the  critic,  to  seize  religion  on  the  wing,  dismember 
it,  extract  a  something  and  declare  it  unique,  by 


20        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

saying,  "This  is  the  essence  of  Christianity." 
Let  us  regard  the  Christian  religion  in  its  life, 
observing  by  what  means  it  has  lived  from  the 
beginning  and  is  still  sustained  ;  let  us  note  the 
principal  features  of  this  venerable  existence,  con- 
vinced that  they  lose  nothing  in  reality  or  im- 
portance, because  to-day  they  are  presented  to 
us  under  colours  that  are  not  those  of  a  former 
time. 

To  reduce  Christianity  to  a  single  point,  a 
solitary  truth  that  the  conscience  of  Jesus  has 
perceived  and  revealed,  is  to  protect  religion 
against  all  attacks  far  less  than  might  be 
expected,  because  it  is  thus  almost  put  out  of 
touch  with  reality,  and  deprived  of  historical 
support,  and  of  every  defence  against  the  reason- 
ing faculty.  Christ  is  presented  as  a  man  who 
had  but  one  true  thought  among  many  false  ones, 
and  those  that  are  now  held  erroneous  and  value- 
less are  not  those  that  occupied  His  attention  the 
least.  If  the  sole  truth  that  He  revealed  fails  to 
make  its  appeal,  there  is  nothing  else  to  look  for 
from  Him ;  and  to  feel  this  incomparable  truth, 
to  find  it  more  true  than  the  rest  of  His  concep- 
tions, the  only  truth  in  fact  among  them,  to  see 
in  it  absolute  religion,  it  is  not  enough  merely  to 
contemplate  it,  but  a  kind  of  intellectual  and  moral 


INTRODUCTION  21 

enthusiasm  is  also  demanded,  prepared  to  see  only 
this  and  be  content. 

It  might  be  said  that  the  God  of  Herr  Harnack, 
driven  from  the  domain  of  Nature,  driven  also 
from  history,  in  so  far  as  history  is  made  of  facts 
and  play  of  thoughts,  has  taken  refuge  on  the 
heights  of  human  conscience,  and  is  now  only  to 
be  seen  there  by  those  who  have  keen  perception. 
Is  it  so  certain  that  He  cannot  be  seen  elsewhere, 
or  that  if  not  seen  elsewhere.  He  will  be  infallibly 
found  there  ?  Is  it  not  possible,  if  no  effort  is 
made  to  keep  Him,  that  He  will  be  driven  also 
from  this  last  retreat,  and  identified  as  one  of 
"  the  category  of  the  Ideal,"  or  as  "  Imperfect 
activity  aspiring  to  Perfection,"  pliantoms  of 
divinity  with  which  the  reason  plays  when 
wandering  to  find  the  explanation  of  itself, 
phantoms  of  no  account  for  religion  ?  Can  the  I 
conscience  keep  for  long  a  God  that  science  \ 
ignores,  and  will  science  respect  for  ever  a  God 
that  it  does  not  know  ?  Can  God  be  goodness  if 
He  is  not  first — Life  and  Truth  ?  Is  it  not  as  easy 
and  as  necessary  to  conceive  Him  as  the  Source 
of  Life  and  Truth  as  of  indulgent  goodness  ?  Shall 
we  have  need  of  Him  to  reassure  the  conscience, 
if  we  have  no  need  of  Him  to  strengthen  the  in- 
telligence ?      Is  it  not  with  all  his  soul  and  all 


22         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

his  might,  that  man  should  search  after  God  to 
find  him  ?  Must  not  God  live  in  Nature  and  in 
man,  and  must  not  the  integral  formula  of  true 
religious  philosophy  be  "  God  everywhere,"  as 
the  integral  formula  of  Christianity  is  "  Christ  in 
the  Church,  and  God  in  Christ." 

But  this  is  not  the  place  to  examine  Herr 
Harnack's  theology.  Our  aim  is  only  to  de- 
termine if  his  "  Essence  of  Christianity,"  instead 
of  being  absolute  religion,  absolute  Christianity, 
entities  that  have  little  chance  of  taking  a  place 
in  history,  does  not  rather  mark  a  stage  in 
Protestant  development,  or  form  merely  a  basic 
formula  of  Protestantism. 


SECTION  I 

THE   SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS 

INTEODUCTIOlSr 

Practically  all  our  knowledge  of  the  life  and 
preaching  of  Jesus  is  contained  in  the  Gospels. 
The  testimony  of  Paul  confirms  rather  than  com- 
pletes that  of  the  evangelists,  and  the  scanty 
indications  found  in  the  pagan  historians  are 
hardly  worth  consideration.  But  the  Gospels  are 
not  strictly  historical  documents,  and  before  using 
them  for  his  definition  of  the  essence  of  Christianity 
Herr  Harnack  was  bound  to  express  an  opinion 
upon  their  general  character  and  value.  It  was 
known  beforehand  that  his  opinion  was  com- 
paratively temperate,  but  not  necessarily  there 
fore  impervious  to  criticism. 


CHAPTER  I 

It  is  beyond  question  that  the  synoptic  Gospels 
"supply  first  a  clear  image  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  both  in  its  principle  and  its  detailed 
application  ;  that  they  then  relate  the  end  of  His 
life,  sacrificed  to  His  work,  and  that  they  show 
us  the  impression  made  by  Him  upon  His 
disciples,  and  communicated  to  the  world  by 
them."  ^  But  one  would  rather  see  more  clearly 
the  motive  of  these  conclusions,  and  form  a 
more  definite  idea  of  their  object.  In  the  present 
case,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  treat  the  origin  of 
the  Gospels  simply  as  a  literary  problem.  The 
question  concerns  the  tradition  itself,  and  the 
nature  of  the  tradition  must  be  analyzed  and 
its  progress  outlined. 

It  will  be  readily  conceded  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  shall  be  set  aside  and  the  synoptic  texts 
regarded  as  "  the  books  of  the  gospel  teaching."  ^ 

»  "  Wesen  des  Christentums,"  p.  20.        2  ibj^i,^  p,  14, 


THE  SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS       25 

It  is  as  well  to  add  that  "  they  are  not  partisan 
pamphlets,"  and  that  it  was  an  error  of  former 
times  to  attribute  to  them  certain  general 
tendencies  which  would  have  made  them  actual 
manifestoes  on  behalf  of  Peter  or  Paul,  or  of  the 
reconciliation  between  the  two  apostles.  But  it  is 
a  very  summary  and  inexact  statement  concerning 
the  composition  of  the  Gospels,  to  represent  that  of 
Mark  as  a  work  at  first  hand ;  those  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  as  having  been  composed  later  than  Mark's 
and  from  another  source ;  ^  and  that  of  John,  as 
founded  on  a  special  tradition,  though  one  very 
difficult  to  recognize.^  Is  the  primitive  character 
of  Mark  established  beyond  discussion  ?  Must 
not  at  least  a  third  source  be  admitted  for  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  ?  And  does  not  the  special 
tradition  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  gradually  disap- 
pear, as  the  sense  of  this  mysterious  book  is  better 
comprehended  ? 

When  the  texts  and  their  relations  to  one 
another  are  examined,  without  attention  or  regard 
to  the  life  of  ideas,  or  the  development  of  beliefs 
and  institutions,  there  is  a  temptation  to  restrain 
history  within  the  limits  that  literary  analysis 
imposes    on    documentary    criticism.       As    the 

*  "  Wesen  des  Christentums,"  p.  15. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  13. 


26        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

second  Gospel  has  passed  almost  in  its  entirety 
into  the  other  two  synoptic  Gospels,  it  is  there- 
fore concluded  that  Mark  is  the  primitive  text. 
It  is,  certainly,  in  regard  to  the  Gospels  known  to 
us,  but  no  one  can  say  that  it  is  absolutely. 
Beyond  the  fact  that  its  relation  to  Matthew  and 
to  Luke  is  not  clearly  defined  on  all  points, 
there  is  little  difficulty  in  seeing  that  it  is  not 
a  book  of  simple  growth  and  homogeneous  editing. 
It  is  held  to  be  both,  because  it  cannot  be  collated 
with  an  edition  or  a  document  more  ancient 
than  the  traditional  text  we  possess. 

The  existence  of  a  source  other  than  Mark's 
Gospel  is  deduced  from  such  portions  of  Christ's 
discourses  as  are  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke, 
but  not  present  in  Mark,  and  hypothetically  this 
source  is  identified  with  the  Hebrew  Gospel  by 
Matthew  and  the  "  Logia "  spoken  of  by  Papias 
of  Hierapolis.  It  begins  now  to  be  evident  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  must  have  worked  from  dif- 
ferent revisions  of  these  "  Logia."  The  collection 
of  discourses,  therefore,  underwent  certain  modi- 
fications before  assuming  the  forms  made  per- 
manent in  our  Evangelists.  Why  should  not 
similar  changes  have  happened  to  the  Gospel 
according  to  Mark  ? 

As  Luke  declares   that   he   knows  of  several 


THE   SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS       27 

Gospels,  and  the  critics  can  verify  only  two, 
Mark  and  the  "  Logia,"  they  readily  suppose  that 
a  part  at  least  of  the  matter  that  is  special  to 
the  third  Gospel  comes  from  another  source. 
There  is  nothing  to  show  that  it  does  not  come 
from  two  sources  or  more,  or  from  special 
revisions  of  the  two  principal  ones.  Criticism 
prefers  the  minimum  number  of  hypotheses 
and  rightly;  but  it  must  at  least  be  said  that 
the  reality  appears  to  have  been  much  more  com- 
plex than  these  suppositions.  As  for  John,  the 
existence  of  a  special  tradition  is  an  expedient 
as  convenient  as  it  is  popular,  to  explain  the 
divergences  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
synoptic  versions. 

These  results  of  critical  labours  may  be  thought 
meagre  enough,  unless  they  are  looked  on  as 
indispensable  preliminaries  to  a  deeper  considera- 
tion, which  shall  pass  upwards  from  words  to 
things,  and  explain  the  history  of  the  gospel 
literature,  by  that  of  the  religious  movement  of 
which  this  literature  was  the  partial  expression. 
The  old  school  of  Tiibingen  was  right  in  its  wish 
to  realize  the  Christian  books  by  the  aid  of  the 
evolution  of  Christianity,  only  it  should  have 
been  more  circumspect  and  less  artless  in  its 
conjectures,   and  have  discussed  its  texts,  ideas, 


28        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

and  facts  more  minutely,  before  formulating  its 
conclusions. 

Were  the  criticism  of  Mark  followed  out  accord- 
ing to  the  purely  literary  method  employed  hither- 
to, a  method  somewhat  superficial  and  mechanical, 
it  would  not  be  difficult  to  discover  the  same 
phenomena  of  combinations,  superpositions  and 
union  of  different  materials  in  the  second  Gospel, 
as  are  recognized  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke.  The 
discussion  with  the  Pharisees  concerning  Beelze- 
bub,^ is  as  it  were  interpolated  into  the  narrative 
of  the  attempt  of  the  kinsmen  of  Jesus  to  per- 
suade Him  to  return  home.^  In  the  chapter  of 
the  parables,  three  stages  can  be  distinguished  of 
tradition  and  revision :  the  parables  themselves,^ 
quite  straightforward,  needing  no  explanation; 
the  interpretation^  desired  by  the  disciples  after 
the  first  parable ;  the  general  reflections  ^  on  the 
object  of  teaching  by  parable,  which  come  as  an 
addition  to  the  explanation  of  the  allegory  of  the 
Sower.  It  is  hardly  credible  that  both  descrip- 
tions ^  of  the  miracle  of  feeding  the  multitude 
should  be  due  to  one  tradition :  one  must  have 
been  added  by  a  reviser — who  had  come  across  a 

1  Mark  iii.  22,  30.  2  Mark  iii.  21,  31-.S5. 

3  Mark  iv.  2-9,  21-;32.  ^  Mark  iv.  10,  13-20. 

6  Mark  iv.  11,  12.  •  Mark  vi.  30,  44;  viii.  1-9. 


THE   SOURCES   OF   THE    GOSPELS        29 

second  version  of  the  miracle.  The  prediction  of 
the  suffering  and  death  of  the  Son  of  man ' 
appears  to  be  intercalated  between  the  confession 
of  Peter  ^  and  the  promise  of  the  early  coming  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God.^  In  the  same  way,  a  phrase 
concerning  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  man^ 
divides  what  is  said  of  the  coming  of  Elias  in  the 
person  of  John  tlie  Baptist.  The  parable  of  the 
wicked  husbandmen  •'*  has  been  introduced  between 
the  reply  made  by  Jesus  in  the  temple  to  the 
chief  priests,  who  questioned  him  as  to  the 
authority  he  claimed,^  and  the  retreat  of  the 
questioners  discomfited  by  the  demand  addressed 
by  Jesus  to  them.''  The  prophecy  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  in  Galilee  after  His  resurrec- 
tion,^ comes  with  little  fitness  between  the  saying 
of  Jesus  as  to  the  confusion  His  Passion  will 
cause  among  His  disciples,^  and  Peter's  reply 
protesting  his  fidelity.^^  It  appears,  therefore, 
incontestable  that  the  second  Gospel  has  been 
composed  by  the  same  means  as  the  first  and 
third  ;   though  one  of  the  sources  of  them,  it  is 


»  Mark  viii.  31-38.  2  Mark  viii.  27-30. 

3  Mark  ix.  1.  «  Mark  ix.  12. 

«  Mark  xii.  1-12.  «   ^\,^^\^  ^i.  27-33. 

7  Mark  xii.  12.  «   Mark  xiv.  28. 

•  Mark  xiv.  27.  »«  Mark  xiv.  29. 


30        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

none  the  less  itself  derived  from  more  than  one 
source,  and  did  not  acquire  its  final  form  in  one 
effort. 

Would  not  a  critical  examination  demonstrate 
further,  with  equal  facility,  that  the  greater  part 
of  ihose  elements  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  that  are 
held  to  show  a  special  tradition,  happen  to  be 
symbolic,  and  represent  not  the  memories,  but  the 
personal  conceptions  of  the  author  ?  The  illusion 
springs  from  the  precision  of  some  of  the  infor- 
mation, notably  the  chronological  indications, 
which  do  not  agree  with  those  of  the  first  Gospels, 
and  could  not  apparently  have  been  derived  from 
them,  nor  imagined  by  the  evaugelist.  Thus  it 
is  to  be  noted,  first,  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
includes  three,^  or  more  probably  four  ^  Easters — 
that  is  to  say,  a  duration  of  three  years  and  some 
months,  with  a  stay  at  Jerusalem  on  several  occa- 
sions; while  a  study  of  the  chronology  of  the 
synoptic  Gospels  would  suggest  that  the  preach- 
ing in  Galilee  lasted  some  months,  and  the 
preaching  in  Jerusalem,  at  the  end,  merely  a  few 
days. 

The  arguments  derived  from  the  first  Gospel  to 
confirm  the  chronology   of   the   fourth   are  very 

1  John  ii.  13;  vi.  4;  xiii.  1.  ^  John  v.  1. 


THE  SOURCES   OF    THE    GOSPELS        31 

weak/  and   the   indications  of   this    chronology 
seem  subordinated  to  the  didactic  and  polemical 
purpose  of  the  book.     If  the  author  had  wished 
to  give  a  historical  account  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  he 
would  not  have  put  the  Galilean  ministry  in  the 
background,  and  he  would  probably  have  described 
the    preaching   at   Jerusalem   differently.     It   is 
universally  admitted  that  his  aim  was  to  show 
Christ  upon  the   theatre   assigned  by   prophetic 
tradition  to  the  Messiah,  and  to  give  the  impres- 
sion that  Christ's  evengelical  manifestations  took 
place,  not  in  an  obscure  corner  of  Palestine,  but 
in  the  capital  of  Judaism.      Viewed  as  history, 
the  point  of  view  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  in- 
compatible with  that  of   the  other  Gospels,  and 
a  choice  has  to  be  made.     The  apparent  precision 
of  John  does  not  alone  authorize   a  preference, 
seeing  that  the  question  lies  not  only  between  two 
systems  of  chronology,  but  between  two  present- 
ments of  the  Saviour,  two  accounts  of  Christ  and 
His  work.     The  account  that  is  most  faithful  in 
regard  to  the  discourses  and  historical  appearance 
of°  Jesus,  is  probably  also  the  most  to  be  trusted 
in  point  of  chronology. 

It  seems  inconceivable  that  Jesus  should  have 

I  Matt.xxiii.   37   (Luke  xiii.  34)  is  generally  cit^d  ;   but 
the  passage  is  possibly  a  quotation.     Cf.  infra,  p.  9G. 


32         THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

preached  at  Jerusalem,  declaring  Himself  the 
Messiah,  on  several  occasions,  during  several 
years,  without  being  arrested.  He  can  but  have 
done  so  once,  and  paid  the  forfeit  with  His  life. 
The  enormous  gaps  in  the  narration  make  the 
reality  of  its  framework  a  matter  of  suspicion. 
It  is  clear  they  have  not  been  left  to  be  filled 
from  the  contents  of  the  other  three  gospels. 
The  discourses  conceal  the  gaps  in  the  narrative. 
In  the  process  of  exhausting  his  doctrinal  thesis, 
and  fulfilling  the  intention  of  his  "  Apologia," 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  John  has  found  it 
sutficient  to  bring  Christ  to  Jerusalem  for  the 
two  first  Easters,^  to  connect  the  miracle  of  the 
feeding  of  the  multitude  with  the  third,^  and 
to  bring  the  Saviour  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  ^ 
and  the  feast  of  the  Dedication,*  while  awaiting 
the  last.^  If  the  last  year  includes  three 
journeys  and  three  sojourns  at  Jerusalem,  while 
the  previous  period  of  more  than  two  years 
includes  only  two  journeys  and  two  sojourns, 
the  reason  is  that  it  was  more  suitable  to  reserve 
to  the  last  months  and  the  last  days  the  greater 
part  of  the  teaching. 

*  John  ii.  13 ;  v.  1,      *  John  vi.  4. 
8  John  vii.  2-10.  ^  John  x.  22. 

^  John  xii.  1 ;  xiii.  1. 


THE  SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS       33 

It  is  useless  to  object  that  the  evangelist 
would  not  have  so  far  enlarged  the  framework 
of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  unless  he  had  material 
to  fill  the  space  thus  gained.  Another  considera- 
tion, equally  important  for  the  didactic  purpose 
of  the  book,  intervened  to  determine  its  chrono- 
logical schema.  Three  years  and  a  half,  make 
half  of  a  week  of  years,  the  Messianic  number 
far  excellence,  and  a  number  which  plays  a  great 
part  in  the  prophecies  of  Daniel^  and  in  the 
Apocalypse.^  The  schema  would  conform  to 
that  needed  by  those  passages  of  Scripture  that 
suggest  that  the  temple,  which  was  forty-six  years 
in  building,  was  a  type  of  the  body  of  Jesus,^ 
and  that  Jesus  Himself  was  not  yet  fifty  years 
old  in  the  year  that  preceded  His  Passion.*  It 
is  known  tliat  St.  Iren^eus  bears  witness  to  this 
tradition,  and  maintains  that  he  found  it  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  The  terrestrial  life  of  the  Saviour 
would  be  thus  held  to  correspond  to  a  perfect 
number,  seven  weeks  of  years,^  a  half  week  at 
the  end  being  reserved  for  the  manifestation  of 
Christ,  the  Word  made  flesh.     Jesus  would  have 

1  Dan.  xii.  7-11.  *  Eev.  xii.  6-14;  xi.  2,  3;  xiii.  5. 

3  John  ii.  20,  21.    The  alhision  is  quite  inadmissible  to  the 
Herodian  buildings,  though  received  by  many  comraet)tator8. 
*  John  viii.  57.  *  Dan.  ix.  25-27 


34        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

lived  presumably  forty-six  years  when  He  drove 
the  money-changers  from  the  temple ;  and  the 
fiftieth  year,  the  year  of  Jubilee,  would  coincide 
with  His  entry  into  Eternal  Glory  after  His 
Eesurrection. 

This  allegorical  chronology  then,  conforming 
to  the  spirit  of  the  book,  in  all  likelihood  is  not 
founded  on  a  genuine  traditional  memory ;  it 
may  well  be  no  more  actual  than  the  Davidic 
genealogies  of  the  Saviour  in  Matthew  and  in 
Luke,  and  have  the  same  signification,  to  wit, 
that  Jesus  is  The  Christ.  Similar  comments 
might  be  made  on  the  date  assigned  by  John  to 
the  death  of  Jesus ;  the  coincidence  of  His  death 
with  the  immolation  of  the  Paschal  Lamb,^ 
which,  according  to  the  synoptic  Gospels,  was 
eaten  the  day  before,^  is  probably  part  of  that 
system  of  symbolic  adaptations  that  governs 
all  this  particular  narrative  of  the  Passion. 

All  these  hypotheses,  more  or  less  probable, 
which  could  readily  be  multiplied,  have  only 
one  result,  to  raise  before  the  theologians  an  inter- 
minable series  of  difficulties,  because  criticism, 
giving  most  of  its  attention  to  the  literary  facts, 
too  often  leaves  the  history  unexplained,  not 
only  the  history  of  nascent  Christianity,  but 
1  Cf.  John  xviii.  28.      «  Cf.  Mark  xiv.  12 ;  Luke  xxli.  7-15. 


THE  SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS       35 

even  the  history  of  the  composition  of  the 
Gospels.  The  points  on  which  the  synoptic 
Gospels  differ  from  one  another,  and  the  differ- 
ences between  John  and  the  synoptics,  have 
been  carefully  accumulated,  and  thus  limits 
have  been  set  to  the  historical  authority  of 
the  Gospels  that  believers  cannot  fail  to  find 
exceedingly  narrow.  The  meaning  of  all  that 
cannot  be  taken  as  literal  history  with  regard 
to  Christ  escapes  them,  because  to  some  extent 
it  has  escaped  the  critics  themselves,  and  they 
have  therefore  failed  to  make  it  clear  to  believers. 
Faith  is  disquieted  by  conclusions  and  scientific 
conjectures  that  do  not  entirely  satisfy  the 
intelligence.  They  would  have  given  rise  to 
less  trouble  if  they  could  have  been  understood. 

But  to  render  the  development  and  character 
of  the  evangelical  literature  quite  intelligible, 
the  Gospels  must  not  only  be  studied  in  them- 
selves and  in  their  relations  as  literary  works  and 
as  simple  historical  documents,  but  must  also 
be  regarded  as  a  partial  expression  of  the  great 
movement  that  proceeded  from  the  preaching  of 
Jesus.  The  literary  tradition  of  the  gospel  has 
followed  the  evolution  of  primitive  Christianity. 
The  two  explain  one  another ;  and  if  the  critical 
analysis    of    the    Gospels     necessarily    precedes 


36        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  reconstitution  of  evangelical  and  apostolic 
history,  it  is  none  the  less  true  that,  by  a  sort 
of  reciprocity,  it  is  the  primitive  history  of 
Christianity  that  explains  the  composition  of 
the  Gospels,  and  throws  light  on  those  particular 
points  that  are  most  disconcerting  for  minds 
unused  to  criticism.  Once  understood  and 
presented  as  a  product  and  a  witness  of  an 
ancient  faith,  the  Gospels,  however  critically 
analyzed,  will  no  longer  be  a  dangerous  trial 
to  the  faith  of  our  contemporaries. 


CHAPTER  II 

At  the  bottom  of  all  traditions  concerning  the 
life  of  Christ,  there  is  this  simple  statement,  set 
forth  in  some  of  the  discourses  in  the  Acts,  where 
are  to  be  found  specimens  of  the  earliest  Christian 
preaching :  Jesus  passed  through  the  world,  doing 
good,  healing,  because  God  was  with  Him,  all 
those  held  by  various  maladies  in  subjection  to 
the  devil.  Denounced  by  the  priests,  and  crucified 
by  order  of  Pontius  Pilate,  He  rose  on  the  third 
day  from  the  dead,  and  thus  became  Christ  and 
Lord.^  Jesus  became  Christ  by  His  resurrection ; 
that  was  the  proof  of  His  dignity  as  Messiah ; 
and  His  glory  is  to  shine  forth  in  His  approaching 
Second  Advent.  Thus  His  teaching  and  His  works 
remain  still  what  they  actually  were,  and  as  they 
appeared  to  those  who  witnessed  them,  a  first 
introduction  to  the  kingdom  of  God  and  works 
of  pity,  not  a  formal  attestation  of  the  Heavenly 
1  Acts  ii.  22-30;  x.  38-40. 


38        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

kingdom,   nor   a   direct    argument   in   favour   of 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 

The  mission  of  Christ  is  not  presented  in  the 
Gospels  in  this  primitive  form.  Tradition  must 
follow  its  natural  tendency,  and  was  soon  to  dis- 
cover, in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  characteristic 
features  and  indubitable  proofs  of  His  Messianic 
dignity.  The  glory  of  the  risen  Lord  threw  new 
light  on  the  memories  of  His  earthly  career. 
Thence  arose  a  kind  of  idealization  of  His  dis- 
courses and  His  acts,  and  a  tendency  to  syste- 
matize them.  If  the  parables,  which  were  really 
tales  concerned  in  their  application  only  with  the 
economy  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  are  supposed 
to  be  full  of  mysteries,  it  is  because  a  Divine 
teaching  is  now  seen  in  them.  If  the  miracles 
are  held  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  it  is 
because  they  are  now  regarded  as  acts  of  Divine 
Omnipotence,  beyond  all  comparison  with  those 
that  God  might  permit  a  pious  man  to  do  for  the 
succour  of  his  equals.  If  those  possessed  of 
devils  hail  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  their  tes- 
timony acquires  a  special  value,  coming  from 
Satan,  who  thus  salutes  his  conqueror.  If  heaven 
opens  above  the  head  of  Jesus  at  His  baptism,  it 
is  to  hallow  the  Messiah.^  If  Jesus  is  tempted 
»  Mark.  i.  9-11. 


THE   SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS        39 

in  the  wilderness,  it  is  that  He  may  triumph  from 
the  first  over  him  whose  kingdom  He  comes  to 
destroy.^  If  He  gives  bread  to  a  hungering 
multitude,  it  is  to  signify  the  salvation  of  men  by 
faith  and  in  the  Christian  communion.^  If  He  is 
transfigured  on  the  mountain-top,  between  Moses 
and  Elias,  it  is  to  show  that  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  bear  witness  to  Him  as  the  Messiah.^ 
If  He  predicts  His  Passion  and  resurrection,  it  is 
because  He  knows  His  future  with  certainty  of 
prevision.  If  darkness  falls  over  the  earth,  when 
He  is  on  the  cross,  it  is  because  the  earth  mourns 
over  the  expiring  Christ.^  If  the  veil  of  the 
temple  is  rent  at  the  moment  of  His  death,^  it 
is  that  the  new  covenant,  now  accomplished, 
destroys  the  old  and  reveals  its  mystery.  Thus 
everything  assumes,  as  it  were,  a  relation  to  the 
Messiah,  and  all  contributes  to  prove  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ. 

Nevertheless  all  these  arguments  are  not  the 
simple  expression  of  increasing  faith.  They  are, 
for  the  most  part,  an  interpretation  of  actual  facts 
and  occurrences,  which  assume  a  new  aspect  in 
the  full  glory  of  the  Messiah,  as  though  they  now 
adapted  themselves  to  the  condition  of  the  Eternal 

»  Matt  iv.  1-11.     2  cf.  1  Mark  viii.  14-21.     ^  ]\iark  ix.  2-8. 
*  Mark  xv.  33.       ^  Mark  xv.  38. 


40        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Christ.  Jesus  did  really  make  Himself  known 
to  His  disciples  as  the  Messiah,  and  the  general 
tendency  of  His  doctrine  as  to  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  implied  the  part  that  was  His  by  right  in 
the  coming  reign  of  God.  The  miracles  of  healing 
are  incontestable,  however  they  may  be  explained ; 
and  if  the  Saviour  did  not  perform  them  to 
demonstrate  His  Divine  mission,  none  the  less 
they  prove  it  in  a  sense,  since  they  reveal  at 
once  the  extent  of  His  power  and  the  goodness  of 
His  heart.  The  unhappy  demoniacs  did  well  to 
salute  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  since  He  came, 
confident  in  faith  and  charity,  to  bring  peace  to 
their  troubled  spirits.  The  baptism  by  John  may 
well  have  been  a  decisive  moment  in  the  life 
of  the  Saviour.  The  picture  of  the  temptation 
presents,  in  a  symbolic  and  abbreviated  form,  the 
psychology  of  Jesus  and  the  manner  in  which  He 
looked  upon  His  mission.  He  regarded  His 
position  as  the  narrative  of  the  transfiguration 
suggests,  and  understood  the  relation  between  His 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  and  the  Law  in  the  sense  that 
the  incident  of  the  rent  veil  of  the  temple  indicates. 
He  admitted  for  Himself,  as  much  as  for  His 
followers,  the  necessity  of  losing  His  life  to  find  it.^ 
If  the  point  of  view  is  new,  and  differs  from 
»  Matt.  X.  39. 


THE  SOURCES   OF   THE   GOSPELS        41 

that  of  the  immediate  witnesses  of  the  teaching 
and  the  occurrences  of  the  Gospels,  it  conforms 
none  the  less  to  the  rule  in  these  matters. 
It  is  in  the  nature  of  human  affairs,  that  the 
work,  the  genius,  and  the  character  of  the 
greatest  of  mankind  can  only  be  appreciated  at 
a  certain  distance,  and  when  the  actors  them- 
selves have  disappeared.  Christ,  in  so  far  as  He 
belongs  to  human  history,  has  not  escaped  this 
law.  His  grandeur  was  not  perceived  till  after 
His  death,  and  is  it  not  a  fact  that  it  is  more  and 
more  appreciated  as  the  centuries  pass  by,  that 
the  present  is  ameliorated  by  the  influence  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  past  illumined  by  all  the  ex- 
periences of  humanity  as  it  advances  in  age  ?  It 
need  only  be  added  that  this  inevitable  and 
legitimate  idealization  of  Christ,  arising  sponta- 
neously in  the  Christian  consciousness,  and  not 
by  the  aid  of  rigorous  observation  and  methodical 
reflection,  must  have  affected,  to  a  certain  extent, 
the  form  of  legendary  development,  and  presents 
itself  at  the  first  glance  of  criticism  as  legendary 
development,  although  actually  it  is  nothing  but 
an  expansion  of  faith,  and  an  attempt,  though  an 
insufficient  one,  to  set  Jesus  on  the  height  that  is 
His  rightful  place. 

Looked  at  from  this  point  of  view,  the  question 


42        THE   GOSPEL  AND   THE   CHURCH 

of  the  gospel  miracles,  always  so  confusing  for 
the  critic,  and  bristling  with  difficulties  for  the 
apologist,  is  cleared  up,  at  any  rate  in  part,  and 
ceases  to  be  a  dangerous  and  alarming  theme  of 
controversy.  Herr  Harnack  discusses  it  a  little 
pedantically,^  and  goes  so  far  as  to  divide  the 
miracles  into  five  categories  :  those  which  are 
exaggerations  of  natural  occurrences,  though  strik- 
ing ones  :  those  that  are  external  and  material 
realizations  of  sayings  and  parables,  or  of  pheno- 
mena of  intimate  religious  life :  those  that  have 
been  imagined  in  order  to  mark  the  accomplish- 
ment of  Old  Testament  prophecies :  the  miracles 
of  healing  performed  by  the  spiritual  power  of 
Jesus:  and  those  whose  explanation  is  not 
obvious. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  distribute  the  gospel 
narratives  among  these  categories.  A  certain  ex- 
aggeration of  fact  appears  everywhere.  It  results 
from  the  presentation  as  a  miracle  of  the  Christ, 
of  an  incident  which  appeared  first  as  a  grace 
of  God,  till  its  miraculous  character  assumed  a 
special  significance  in  the  Messianic  perspective. 
It  may  be  doubted  if  such  a  miraculous  narrative, 
for  instance,  as  that  of  the  withered  fig  tree,  or 
the    feeding    of  the    multitude,  is  really   to  be 


1  Pages  16-19. 


THE  SOURCES    OF  THE   GOSPELS       43 

explained  as  the  materialization  of  a  parable,  as  has 
been  suggested;  but  it  seems  incontestable  that 
the  evangelists  were  always  ready  to  see  in  the 
miracles  a  direct  teaching  of  Christ,  as  they  saw 
a  proof  of  His  omnipotence,  and  that  their 
account  has  been  influenced  by  this  allegorizing 
tendency,  as  it  has  been  in  their  narratives  of  the 
parables.  The  influence  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
felt  a  little  throughout,  because  of  the  preoccu- 
pation with  the  Messiah,  and  it  would  no  doubt 
be  more  accurate  to  say  that  it  colours  the 
majority  of  the  narratives,  rather  than  that  it 
has  created  any  one  of  them.  Finally,  there  is; 
a  mysterious  and  inexplicable  residue  in  the  most 
solidly  guaranteed  miracles.  It  is  better  not  to" 
follow  a  rigorous  classification,  which  does  not 
correspond  to  the  reality,  and  assert  simply  the 
substantial  truth  of  the  tradition  of  the  beneficent 
activity  of  Christ,  while  recognizing  the  elabora- 
tion of  early  memories,  an  elaboration  more  or 
less  considerable,  as  the  case  may  be,  but  always 
governed  by  the  same  principle,  the  faith  that 
seeks  and  finds  the  Messiah  in  all  the  works  and 
all  the  wanderings  of  His  earthly  pilgrimage. 


CHAPTEE   III 

At  this  stage  in  its  development,  evangelical 
tradition  is  still  kept  within  the  limits  assigned 
by  the  Book  of  Acts  to  the  testimony  of  the 
apostles.^  It  includes  the  time  between  the 
Baptism  of  Jesus  by  John  and  the  Resurrection 
of  the  Saviour,  and  it  still  clings  to  the  idea  of 
the  Messiah  promised  to  Israel,  thuugh  already 
it  tends  to  go  beyond  this  idea  in  interpretation 
of  the  prophecies  and  their  fulfilment.  The 
Gospel  according  to  Mark,  which,  taken  broadly, 
represents  this  stage  of  faith,  nevertheless 
contains  traces  of  a  more  complicated  doctrine, 
of  a  spirit  of  speculation  already  busy  on  the 
life  and  death  of  Christ,  interpreting  them  to 
suit  a  more  learned  theology.  Already  there 
can  be  felt  a  presentiment  that  the  framework 
of  the  Christian  faith  has  been  enlarged.  From 
henceforward  the  enlargement  will  continue,  and 
1  Cf.  Acts  i.  21,  22. 


THE  SOURCES    OF   THE    GOSPELS       45 

the    historical   framework    will    extend    also    to 
include  the  whole  life  of  Jesus. 

The  first  theory  of  Christ  was  formulated 
by  St.  Paul.  This  apostle,  who  had  not  known 
Jesus,  yet  became  by  the  vicissitudes  of  his 
career  the  evangelist  of  the  nations,  was  the 
first,  or  one  of  the  first,  to  feel  the  need  of  form- 
ins  an  idea  of  Christ,  a  definition  of  Him  as  the 
Saviour,  since  he  was  compelled  to  explain,  and 
could  not  simply  narrate.  Starting  from  his 
own  religious  experience,  and  from  the  Jewish 
beliefs,  modified  by  his  faith,  and  interpreted  so 
as  to  be  intelligible  to  the  Gentiles,  he  affirms  the 
eternal  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah,  and  formu- 
lates the  theory  of  the  Eedemption.  In  his  last 
epistles  he  comes  to  identify  Christ,  more  or  less, 
with  Eternal  Wisdom,  attributing  to  Him  a  cos- 
mological  function,  as  the  theory  of  the  Eedemp- 
tion attributes  to  Him  a  function  in  regard  to 
humanity.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  does  the  same,  using  slightly  different 
terms  and  symbols.  This  double  theory  of  Christ, 
in  His  relations  to  the  universe  and  to  humanity, 
could  not  fail  to  enter  into  the  evangelical 
tradition,  and  did  in  fact  enter.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Eedemption  appears  in  Mark  ;  ^  that  of  the 
1  Mark  x.  45 ;  xiv.  24. 


46        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

Eternal  Christ,  Wisdom  of  the  Father,  agent 
of  all  Divine  Works,  creeps  into  Matthew  and 
Luke,^  and  finds  its  definite  statement  in  the 
Gospel  of  John. 

Thus,  little  by  little,  there  is  formed  in  the 
atmosphere  of  faith,  beyond  what  can  be  called  the 
historical  reality  of  the  gospel,  beyond  even  its 
idealization  to  suit  the  Messiah,  the  dosrma  which 
aims  at  determining  its  providential  meaning,  its 
universal  scope,  its  transcendent  efficacy.  It 
must  be  said,  however,  that  the  Messianic 
element,  dominant  in  Mark,  is  still  the  element 
most  in  evidence  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke ;  the 
theory  of  universal  salvation,  expressed  in  the 
synoptics,  only  enters  into  and  appears  beside 
the  traditional  matter  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Messiah  has  influenced  more  profoundly;  and 
the  theory  of  the  Eternal  Christ,  of  Divine 
Wisdom  revealed  in  Jesus,  appears  still  more 
discreetly.  It  is  only  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  that 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  intermediate  assent 
of  creation  and  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  after 
being  clearly  defined  in  the  prologue,^  is  freely 
set  forth  in  the  discourses  which  are  substituted 
for  the  traditional  sentences  the  gospel  desires 
to  interpret,  and  in  the  symbolic  narratives  that 
»  Matt.  xi.  27 ;  Luke  x.  22.  2  JoI^q  j^  j.jg^ 


THE  SOURCES    OF  THE    GOSPELS       47 

take  the  place  of  the  Messianic  miracles  to 
signify  the  illuminating  and  eternally  vivifying 
action  of  the  Incarnate  Word. 

Nevertheless,  the  theological  speculations  of 
Paul  and  of  John  do  not  venture  beyond  the 
historical  framework  of  the  Primitive  Gospel.  It 
would  even  appear  that  Paul  straitened  its 
limits,  since,  while  he  recognized  in  Jesus  the 
earthly  manifestation  of  the  eternal  Christ,  he 
invariably  considers  the  Passion  and  Eesurrection 
of  the  Saviour  as  acts  of  the  Messiah.  As  for 
John,  he  limits  the  ministry  of  Jesus  to  the 
manifestation  of  the  Word,  Whose  incarnation 
seems  to  be  dated  from  the  Baptism,  and  has  no 
other  purpose  than  the  revelation  made  by  the 
teaching,  the  miracles,  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ.  The  idea  underlying  John's  Gospel  is 
always  a  vision  of  faith,  a  faith  which,  in  order 
to  appreciate  Jesus  worthily,  makes  use  of  the 
loftiest  elements  of  contemporary  religious  philo- 
sophy, and  is  expressed  in  the  language  of  this 
mystic  philosophy.  Christ  is  the  actual  mani- 
festation of  the  Eternal  Word,  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  being  a  symbolic  description  of  this 
truth,  is  a  kind  of  incarnation,  or  revelation  by 
allegorical  images,  of  discourses  and  sayings  of 
Christ,  the  Life  and  Light  of  mankind. 


48        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

But  then  came  the  desire  to  know  the  human 
antecedents  of  Jesus,  or  rather  the  desire  to 
represent  His  human  origin  conformably  to  the 
idea  already  formed  of  His  dignity  and  Provi- 
dential office.  From  the  point  of  view  of  Paul, 
and  still  more  from  that  of  Mark  and  John, 
the  narratives  of  Jesus'  infancy  are,  so  to  speak, 
outside  the  history  of  Christ,  and  seem  in  the 
same  way  to  have  been  foreign  to  the  primitive 
tradition  of  the  gospel.  Herr  Harnack  writes  :  ^ 
"Two  of  the  Gospels,  it  is  true,  include  a  pre- 
history, the  history  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  but 
we  need  not  be  concerned  with  this,  for  even 
were  its  contents  more  credible  than  they  are, 
this  pre-history  would  be  almost  without  sig- 
nificance for  the  end  we  have  in  view."  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  hint  there  that  the 
essence  of  Christianity  consists  in  faith  in  God 
the  Father,  without  regard  to  the  Divine  Son- 
ship  of  Jesus. 

It  is  true  however,  that  these  narratives  re- 
present a  normal  development  of  the  history  of 
Christ.  The  very  nature  of  their  subject,  the 
critical  examination  of  the  two  versions  taken 
separately  or  compared,  and  an  analysis  of 
evangelical    tradition,    make    it    impossible    to 

>  Patie  20. 


THE   SOURCES    OF   THE    GOSPELS      49 

regard  them  as  a  defiuite  expression  of  historical 
memories  ;  none  the  less  they  are  put  forward  as 
a  document  of  Christian  faith,  and  in  this  capacity 
attract  the  attention  of  the  historian.  The  idea 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception  by  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  merely,  as  is  readily 
admitted,  a  physical  explanation  of  the  Divine 
Sonship  of  Jesus,  but  also  a  religious  explanation, 
like  that  attached  to  the  idea  of  the  Messiah,  and 
a  metaphysical  explanation  like  that  that  belongs 
to  the  idea  of  the  Incarnation ;  it  is  of  the  nature 
of  both,  because,  if  the  Immaculate  Conception 
in  a  sense  demonstrates  the  Fatherhood  of  God, 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  for 
its  immediate  end  the  miraculous  formation  of  a 
purely  human  being,  but  rather  the  communica- 
tion of  Divine  life,  which  makes  Jesus,  from  the 
earliest  moment  of  His  existence,  the  elect  of 
God,  the  Christ  anointed  by  the  Spirit,  the  only 
Son  of  the  Heavenly  Father ;  and  thus  is 
anticipated  that  consecration  of  the  Messiah 
which  the  most  ancient  version  of  the  synoptic 
Gospel  referred  to  the  Baptism.  The  affirmation 
of  faith  is  addressed  to  faith,  and  appeals  only  to 
the  judgment  of  faith :  from  the  Catholic  point 
of  view,  it  is  for  the  Church  to  determine  its 
meaning  and  extent. 

E 


50       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

The  narratives  of  the  childhood  of  Christ  are 
for  the  historian  only  an  expression  and  an 
assertion  of  faith  in  the  Messiah,  that  faith  which 
is  affirmed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  and  transfigured  the  memories  of  the 
Apostles,  which  is  also  affirmed  and  developed  in 
Paul,  and  then  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  This  faith 
is,  as  it  were,  the  reply  made  by  the  generations 
of  believers  in  succession  to  the  proposition  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  ;  it  increases,  yet  remains  the 
same,  like  an  echo  which,  reverberating  from 
mountain  to  mountain,  becomes  more  sonorous 
the  further  it  travels  from  its  point  of  origin. 

The  subject  of  this  faith  is  at  no  stage  of  its 
development  presented  to  the  historian  as  an 
actual  reality.  Criticism  has  not  to  decide  if 
Jesus  is  or  is  not  the  Word  Incarnate,  if  He 
existed  before  His  terrestrial  manifestation,  if 
He  was  consecrated  Messiah  from  His  conception, 
or  from  the  day  of  His  baptism,  if  the  idea  of  the 
Messiah  in  its  earliest  form,  and  in  its  successive 
transformations,  is  a  truth.  Considered  as  belief 
this  idea  is  addressed  to  faith,  that  is  to  say,  to 
the  man,  judging  with  all  his  soul  the  worth 
of  the  religious  doctrine  presented  to  him.  The 
historian  as  such  need  not  constitute  himself 
either    apologist    or    adversary.      He   knows   it 


THE  SOURCES    OF  THE    GOSPELS       51 

simply  as  a  conception  or  a  force  whose  ante- 
cedents, central  manifestation  and  indefinite 
progress,  he  can  analyze  up  to  a  point,  but  whose 
deep  meaning  and  secret  power  are  not  things 
that  can  be  deduced  from  simple  analysis  or 
critical  discussion  of  texts  and  facts. 

None    the    less    he    will   not   deny   that    the 
idea  of   Christ  is  essential  to   Christianity,— for 
Christianity,   at    all    times,  from   its   first  origin 
in    the    gospel    of    Jesus,    will    appear    to   him 
established    on   the   faith  in   Christ.      He   will 
recognize  the  substance  of  this  ftiith  in  the  best 
authenticated  words  of  Jesus,  namely,  the  eternal 
and  unique  predestination  of  the  Messiah.     His 
unique  office  in  the  work  of  salvation,  and  His 
unique  relation  with  God,  a  relation  not  founded 
merely  on  a  knowledge  of  His  goodness,  but  on  a 
substantial  communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit- 
that  is  to  say,  of  God  Himself— to  the  predestined 
Messiah.     The  Gospels  wHl  become  for  the  critic 
the  eloquent  testimony  to  this  Uving  faith,  whose 
source  is  to  be  found  not  elsewhere  than  in  the 
soul  of  Jesus  Himself.     No  page  of  these  books 
will    appear    negligible    on   the   ground   that   it 
does    not   directly  represent  the  thought  of  the 
Saviour.     The  Gospels  are  the    principal  docu- 
ments of  Christian  faith,  for  the  first  period  of 


52        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

its  history,  and  none  of  their  indications  can  be 
rejected  as  insignificant,  seeing  that  all,  without 
exception  and  from  the  beginning,  have  been  a 
means  of  expressing  faith  and  of  afi&rming  and 
extending  it. 


SECTION  II 
THE   KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN 

INTEODUCTION 

The  general  theme  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus  was 
the  reign  of  God,  or  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 
The  greater  part  of  the  parables  bear  either  on 
the  coming  of  this  kingdom  or  on  the  way  of 
making  ready  for  it.  In  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Christ 
makes  His  disciples  say,  "  Thy  Kingdom  come !  " 
All  His  teaching  is  given  to  prepare  for  the 
kingdom.  However,  as  the  gospel  nowhere  con- 
tains any  express  definition  of  its  nature,  there 
is  room  for  discussion  on  the  actual  object  of  the 
conception,  and  discussion  still  continues.  Before 
Jesus,  the  idea  of  the  reign  of  God  is  above  all 
concerned  with  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the 
system  that  is  to  take  the  place  of  the  actual  and 
imperfect    order.      Daniel,   and    the   authors   of 


54        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

prophecies  and  visions,  see  in  it  the  great  mani- 
festation of  Divine  power,  which  is  to  inaugurate 
the  eternal  happiness  of  the  Saints  on  a  re- 
generated earth,  a  happiness  over  which  God  will 
rule  in  the  New  Jerusalem.  Various  elements 
go  to  make  up  this  conception :  cosmology  and  a 
transposition  of  cosmogony,  in  that  the  renewal 
is  brought  about  by  the  destruction  of  the  present 
world;  national  sentiment,  which  associates  the 
cosmic  renovation  and  general  judgment  with  the 
restoration  of  Israel;  and  religious  sentiment  of 
the  Divine  justice,  which  rewards  the  good  and 
punishes  the  wicked.  In  the  gospel,  the  national 
element  has  disappeared,  the  nationality  of  Israelite 
being  no  longer  in  itself  a  title  to  the  kingdom  ; 
the  eschatological  element  no  longer  fills  the  view, 
and  the  religious  and  moral  element  comes  into 
the  foreground.  But  the  relation  between  these 
last  two  elements,  which  seem  co-ordinated,  is  a 
point  much  debated.  Several  critics  maintain 
that  the  thought  of  Jesus  was  entirely  dominated 
by  apocalyptic  conceptions  of  the  end  of  the 
world.  Others  think  the  moral  point  of  view  of 
remission  of  sins  and  reconciliation  with  God  is 
the  most  important,  the  sole  essential  considera- 
tion. 


CHAPTEE  I 

This  last  opinion  is  that  of  Herr  Harnack,  and 
the  eminent  lecturer  speaks  with  severity,  even  a 
little  unfairly/  of  those  who  support  the  contrary 
view.  Kecognizing  that  the  kingdom  that  is  to 
come  is  actually  what  Jesus  understood  by  the 
kingdom,  they  yield  to  the  desire,  conscious  or 
unconscious,  to  bring  everything  to  one  level,  and 
lower  that  which  is  raised.  Jesus,  it  is  said, 
would  share  this  belief  in  the  kingdom  that  is 
to  come,  but  for  Him  it  would  not  constitute 
the  whole  of  the  reign  of  God;  it  would  not 
even  be  the  principal  part,  because  the  Saviour 
taught  from  the  first,  and  was  alone  in  teachincr 
that  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  not  to  be  known 
by  external  signs,  but  exists  already  in  the  man 
who  trusts  God. 

A  problem  of  this  nature  is  not  to  be  dismissed 
by  insinuations  as  to  the  tendencies  of  this  person 
or    that,   who   has   sustained  one   or   the    other 

1  Page  35. 


56       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

conclusion.  The  expositors  accused  of  belittling 
Christ  might  easily  reply  that,  to  attribute  to 
Him  the  ideas  that  seem  to  one's  self  to  be  the 
nearest  to  truth  is  perhaps  to  honour  Him  less 
than  might  be  imagined.  The  gospel  texts  are 
at  hand,  and  it  is  solely  by  their  testimony  that 
the  question  should  be  decided. 

The  evangelists  have  summed  up  the  preach- 
ing of  Jesus  at  the  commencement  of  His 
ministry  in  the  words :  "  Eepent,  for  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven  is  at  hand."  ^  These  words  might  also 
stand  for  an  abridgment  of  the  whole  teaching  of 
the  Saviour  in  Galilee  and  at  Jerusalem.  They 
express  the  necessity  of  a  moral  conversion,  of  an 
internal  change,  of  the  remission  of  sins,  but  all 
in  view  of  the  kingdom  that  is  at  hand,  that  is, 
in  view  of  the  end  of  the  world,  for  the  kingdom 
which  is  near  is  the  same  that  John  the  Baptist 
had  announced  before  Jesus.  The  dominant  idea 
is  obviously  that  of  the  kingdom  which  is  soon 
to  be,  and  the  repentance  is  significant  in  relation 
to  the  kingdom,  as  it  is  the  indispensable  con- 
dition of  admittance  therein.  But  the  entire 
gospel  only  develops  this  warning.  The  beati- 
tudes at  the  commencement  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  promise  the  kingdom  to  the  poor  and 
1  Matt.  iv.  17. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  57 

afflicted,  to  the  needy  and  the  persecuted ;  it  is 
promised  to  them  as  a  future  recompense,  and  is 
not  supposed  to  be  realized  in  them.  When  the 
Saviour  sends  His  apostles  out  to  preach,  the 
evangelists  represent  Him  as  leaving  repentance 
to  be  understood,  and  the  message  He  gives  them 
contains  only  the  formula,  "The  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  at  hand,"  ^  which,  without  doubt,  is 
the  essence  of  the  gospel,  the  "good  news" 
announced  by  Christ.  When  He  is  asked  for  a 
sign,  Jesus  replies  that  He  will  give  no  other 
than  the  sign  of  Jonas,^ — that  is  to  say.  He  refers 
His  hearers  to  the  approaching  judgment  of  God. 
He  assures  His  disciples  that  some  of  them  shall 
be  still  living  when  the  kingdom  shall  arrive; 
and  when  the  disciples  object  that  Elias  must 
first  come,  He  replies  that  the  prophecy  is  ful- 
filled, and  that  Elias  has  come  in  the  person  of 
John  the  Baptist.^  The  parable  of  the  workers 
in  the  vineyard  ^  shows  that  the  kingdom  is  assured 
to  all  who  have  worked  for  God,  no  matter  for 
how  short  a  time.  In  the  parable  of  the  Wed- 
ding Feast,^  the  kingdom  bears  the  same  relation 
to  the  gospel  as  the  feast  to  the  invitation  that 
precedes  it.     Men   are   warned    to   be   on   their 

1  Matt.  X.  7.  2  Matt.  xvi.  4  ;  xii.  39. 

3  Matt.  xvii.  12.       *  Matt.  xx.  1-15.       ^  Luke  xiv.  lG-24. 


58        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

guard,  for  the  kingdom  will  come  as  a  thief  in 
the  night :  ^  it  is  necessary  to  await  the  kingdom 
as  the  faithful  servant  awaits  the  return  of  his 
lord.^  Store  of  merit  must  be  provided  as  the 
wise  virgins  kept  their  oil,  lest,  when  the  king- 
dom shall  come,  the  unready  shall  experience 
the  fate  of  the  five  foolish  ones  who  knocked 
in  vain  at  the  bridegroom's  door.^  In  view  of 
the  judgment,  the  gifts  of  God  must  be  made 
fruitful,  as  the  servants,  in  their  master's  absence, 
employed  the  talents  they  had  received  from 
him :  *  by  a  good  use  of  life  and  its  present 
benefits,  a  part  in  the  kingdom  must  be  made 
sure,  as  the  dishonest  steward  prepared  a  refuge 
for  himself  among  his  master's  debtors  :  ^  poverty 
is  to  be  endured  with  resignation,  in  the  faith 
that  the  future  life  will  atone  for  the  miseries 
of  the  present,  as  is  seen  in  the  example  of 
Lazarus:^  consolation  for  the  death  even  of  the 
Saviour  is  to  be  found  in  the  remembrance  that, 
at  the  last  supper,  when  Jesus  presented  to  His 
disciples  the  symbolic  cup,  He  bade  them  look 
forward  to  the  meeting  at  the  festival  of  the 
kingdom  of  God 7 

1  Matt.  xxiv.  43.  *  Matt.  xxiv.  45-51. 

3  Matt.  XXV.  1-13.  4  Matt.  xxv.  14-29. 

6  Luke  xvi.  1-8.  ^  Luke  xvi.  19-25. 

7  Mark  xiv.  25. 


THE   KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  59 

The  idea  of  the  celestial  kingdom  is  then  nothing 
but  a  great  hope,  and  it  is  in   this  hope  or  no- 
where that  the  historian  should  set  the  essence  of 
the  gospel,  as  no  other  idea  holds  so  prominent 
and  so   large  a  place  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
The  qualities  of  this  hope  are  as  easy  to  determine 
as  its  object.     It  is  in   the  first  place  collective, 
the  good  of  the  kingdom  being  destined  for  all 
who  love  God,  and  of  such  a  nature  that  all  can 
enjoy  it  in  common,  and  so  well  that  their  happi- 
ness cannot  be  compared  to  anything  so  fitly  as 
to  a  great  festival.      It  is  objective,  and  consists 
not  only  in  the  holiness  of  the  believer,  nor  in  the 
love  that  unites  him  to  God,  but  implies  all  the 
conditions  of  a  happy  life,  both  the  physical  and 
the  moral  conditions,  the  external  and  the  internal 
conditions,  so  that  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  can 
be  spoken  of  as  a  fact  that  completes  history,  and 
is  in  no  way  confounded  with  the  conversion  of 
those  who  are  called  to  it.     It  regards,  and  can 
only  regard,  the  future,  as   befits   its  nature  of 
hope ;    and   this   future   is   not   the   fate   of  the 
individual  in  this  world,  but  the  renewal  of  the 
world,   the   restoration   of   humanity    in    eternal 
justice  and  happiness. 

If  there  is  an  anticipation  of  the  kingdom  in 
the  teaching  of  the  gospel  and  in  the  fruits  it 


6o       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

produced,  it  is  because  the  view  of  the  kingdom 
is  of  a  thing  close  at  hand ;  the  gospel  is  the 
immediate  and  direct  preparation  for  the  king- 
dom, and  the  present  looks  only  to  this  future 
and  virtually  contains  it.  If  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  compared  to  a  feast,  the  gospel  is 
the  invitation  of  the  Father,  such  as  is  made 
when  the  board  is  spread  to  entreat  the  guests 
to  come.-^  The  principal  guarantee  of  safety  in 
the  kingdom  will  be  the  overthrow  of  Satan; 
but  already  Satan  is  overwhelmed,  he  has  found 
One  stronger  than  he,  and  his  house  is  spoiled.^ 
Jesus  saw  in  the  cures  He  effected,  especially 
the  cures  of  those  possessed  by  devils,  the 
pledge  of  His  final  victory  over  the  powers  of 
evil,  and  He  could  say  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  come,  since  by  the  Spirit  of  God  He  cast  out 
the  demons.^  It  may  be  that  this  assertion, 
which  is  made  in  support  of  an  argument  founded 
on  the  exorcisms  practised  by  the  Jews,  and 
separates  rather  inappropriately  the  two  com- 
parisons of  the  kingdom  divided  against  itself 
and  the  strong  man,  may  belong  to  a  later  stratum 
of  evangelical   tradition.*      If  it   proceeds   from 


1  Matt.  xxii.  4.  2  Matt.  xii.  29.  »  Matt.  xii.  28. 

*  Cf.  Mark  iii.  24-27. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  6i 

Jesus,  it  would  set  forth  the  kingdom  as 
realized  in  its  commencement,  and  not  in  its 
fulness,  the  power  of  Satan  being  not  yet  entirely- 
overcome. 

In  the  same  way  should  be  understood  the 
words,  "  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until 
now,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  suffereth  violence, 
and  the  violent  take  it  by  force."  ^  The  kingdom 
of  Heaven  was  inaugurated  after  John  had 
finished  his  ministry,  because  it  was  then  that 
Jesus  Himself  preached  the  gospel;  but  it  was 
inaugurated  in  its  preparation,  not  in  its  fulfil- 
ment; and  those  who  seize  it,  the  publicans  and 
sinners  who  take  possession  of  it,  and  who  seem, 
as  it  were,  to  take  it  by  force,  do  not  enter  into 
the  felicity  of  the  kingdom  :  they  have  seized  it 
in  promise,  they  have  acquired  a  right  to  the 
happiness  of  the  just. 

The  kingdom  is  for  those  God  pardons,  and  God 
pardons  all,  provided  they  pardon  themselves. 
Thus  the  kingdom  is  for  those  who  are  good  after 
the  example  of  God,  and  in  organizing  the  present 
life  on  a  basis  of  charity,  the  gospel  realizes 
already  the  kingdom,  whose  full  and  final  coming 
will  only,  as  it  were,  assure  the  happiness  and 
immortality  of  charitable  men.  But  the  kingdom 
1  Matt.  xi.  12. 


62        THE   GOSPEL  AND-  THE   CHURCH 

is  actually  this  everlasting  happiness.  Its  root 
is  within ;  it  lies  like  a  precious  seed  in  the  soul 
of  each  believer;  but  in  this  state  it  is  hidden, 
rudimentary,  imperfect,  and  it  awaits  its  perfec- 
tion in  the  future. 


CHAPTER   II 

In  order  to  determine  wherein  consists  the 
essence  of  the  kingdom,  of  the  gospel,  and  of 
Christianity,  Herr  Harnack  starts  from  a  principle 
that  is  far  from  self-evident,  and  is  contradicted 
by  the  general  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  the 
Mosaic  religion  and  Israelite  tradition.  "  Truly," 
he  writes,  "  it  is  a  difficult  task,  and  a  grave 
responsibility  for  the  historian  to  distinguish  what 
is  traditional  from  what  is  personal,  the  kernel 
from  the  husk,  in  the  preaching  of  Jesus  as  to  the 
kingdom  of  God."  ^  Here  evidently  what  is 
traditional  is  the  husk;  what  is  personal,  the 
kernel;  and  because  the  eschatological  idea  of 
the  kingdom  belongs  to  Israelite  tradition,  Herr 
Harnack  finds  it  quite  natural  to  consider  it  as 
merely  the  husk  of  the  gospel,  while  the  faith  in 
a  merciful  God  is  the  kernel,  the  original  element 
in  the  teaching  of  the  Saviour. 

Such   a   conception   of  the   essential   and  the 

1  Page  3G. 


64       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

accessory  in  matters  of  evangelical  belief  is 
acceptable  neither  to  the  philosopher  nor  to  the 
historian,  whose  duty  is  only  to  examine  what 
importance  Jesus  Himself  attaches  to  the  different 
points  or  aspects  of  His  doctrine,  without  arro- 
gating to  themselves  the  right  to  decide  that  the 
traditional  element  in  the  gospel  is  either  suspect 
or  guaranteed  merely  by  the  fact  that  it  is  tradi- 
tional. Now  Christ  has  never  said  or  given  it 
to  be  understood,  that  the  old  revelation  was  any 
less  authorized  than  that  of  which  He  was  the 
instrument.  On  the  contrary,  He  had  no  other 
pretension  than  to  fulfil  the  law  and  the  prophets ; 
without  doubt  He  wished  to  enlarge  and  perfect 
the  former  revelation,  but,  while  enlarging  and 
perfecting,  He  meant  to  retain  it ;  He  is  not  set 
before  the  world  as  the  revealer  of  a  new  principle ; 
if  He  never  gives  His  definition  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  it  is  because  the  kingdom  of  which  He  is  the 
messenger  and  the  instrument  is  identified  in  His 
thought,  as  in  the  minds  of  His  hearers,  with  that 
that  the  prophets  have  foretold.  He  holds  to  the 
hope  of  the  kingdom  as  He  holds  to  the  precept 
of  the  love  of  God  and  faith  in  Him. 

These  three  elements  of  His  gospel  are  inter- 
twined, inseparable,  essential,  although,  or  rather 
because,    they    are    traditional;     they    are    the 


THE   KINGDOM   OF  HEAVEN  65 

essence  of  the  gospel  because  they  were  the 
essence  of  Biblical  revelation.  If  His  way  of 
understanding  and  realizing  God,  Love  and  the 
kingdom,  is  more  pure,  more  deep,  more  living 
than  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  perfects  what 
has  preceded  it  and  does  not  destroy  it.  To  seek 
in  the  gospel  an  element  that  shall  be  entirely 
new  in  regard  to  the  religion  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  is  to  seek  a  thing  that  Jesus  had  no 
desire  to  set  there,  a  thing  that  on  His  own 
statement  does  not  exist  there. 

The  contradiction  that  has  been  discovered 
between  the  conception  of  a  kingdom  that  is  to 
come  and  that  of  a  kingdom  already  present 
does  not  exist,  unless  we  attribute  to  the  second 
idea  an  absolute  character  it  does  not  possess  in 
the  gospel.  It  would  be  far  from  easy  to  prove 
by  clear  and  authentic  texts  that  the  kingdom  (a 
supernatural  gift)  is  purely  a  religious  benefit, — 
union  with  the  living  God — and  the  chief  experi- 
ence of  a  man  consisting  in  the  remission  of  his 
sins.^  Here  again  the  great  importance  attached 
by  Protestant  theology  to  the  idea  of  sin  and 
justification  accounts  for  what,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  historical  criticism,  is  nothing  but  a  pre- 
conceived   determination   to   find   in   the   gospel 

1  Page  40. 

F 


66        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

nothing  but  the  essentials  of  one's  own  religion. 
Christ  nowhere  confounds  the  kingdom  with  the 
remission  of  sins,  which  is  only  the  condition 
of  entrance  into  the  kingdom.  Nowhere  does 
He  identify  the  kingdom  with  God,  and  God's 
power  acting  in  the  heart  of  the  individual.^ 
It  is  only  by  a  very  special  exposition  that  this 
definition  of  the  kingdom  can  be  found  in  the 
parables.^  The  parable  of  the  Sower  only  signi- 
fies that  the  kingdom  is  the  Word  of  God:  the 
evangelical  word,  which  is  not  the  kingdom,  is 
compared  to  the  grain  the  sower  sows  in  his  field, 
and  of  which  only  a  portion  bears  fruit.  Part  of 
the  seed  is  lost,  and  that  is  a  thing  that  cannot 
be  said  of  the  kingdom.  The  part  that  takes 
root  corresponds  to  the  useful  preaching,  that 
which  attracts  aspirants  for  the  kingdom,  but  it 
is  not  itself  the  kingdom ;  it  bears  fruit  for  the 
kingdom,  which  is  the  end  for  which  the  seed 
of  the  word  is  sown.  In  the  same  way  the 
parables  of  the  Pearl  and  the  Hidden  Treasure 
do  not  go  to  prove  that  the  kingdom  is  God,  in 
the  secret  places  of  the  heart,  but  simply  that  the 
bliss  of  the  everlasting  kingdom  is  worth  acquu*- 
ing  at  the  sacrifice  of  all  earthly  possessions  and 
advantages,  as  the  Pearl  of  great  price  and  the 
1  Page  35.  »  Page  36. 


THE   KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  67 

treasure  hidden  in  the  field  were  worth  buying  at 
the  price  of  all  the  wealth  of  those  who  discovered 
them.  The  application  of  these  parables  is  not 
doubtful,  and  is  closely  related  to  the  eschato- 
logical  conception  of  the  kingdom.  The  seed  which 
grows  without  the  labourer  heeding/  may  suggest 
the  idea  of  a  moral  progress  accomplished  within 
the  soul ;  but  in  reality  the  comparison  bears 
on  the  kingdom  as  taught  and  the  kingdom  made 
manifest,  the  iirst  corresponding  to  the  seed,  the 
second  to  the  harvest ;  between  the  two  lies  the 
time  while  the  seed  germinates  and  the  gospel 
spreads.  The  parables  of  the  mustard  seed  and 
of  the  leaven,  which  emphasize  the  contrast 
between  an  insignificant  beginning  and  a  great 
final  result,  apply  also  to  the  antithesis  between 
the  kingdom  started  by  the  evangelizing  teaching 
and  the  kingdom  developed  to  its  actual  mani- 
festation. Everywhere  the  gospel  is  subordinated 
to  the  kingdom. 

Some  preparation  is  needed  to  find  that  who- 
ever recites  the  Lord's  Prayer  prays  only  to  pre- 
serve the  strength  he  already  possesses,  and  to 
strengthen  the  union  between  himself  and  God.^ 
The  first  part  of  the  prayer  is  concerned  witli  tlie 
coming  of  tlie  kingdom,   and  the   Christian  who 

»  Mark  iv.  26-29.  «  Page  42. 


68        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

says,  "  Thy  kingdom  come,"  does  not  imagine  that 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  realized  within  himself. 
The  second  part  is  subordinated  to  the  first,  as 
the  gospel  is  subordinated  to  the  kingdom  ;  for  it 
is  in  view  of  the  near  approach  of  the  kingdom 
that  men  pray  for  daily  bread,  to  be  forgiven  their 
trespasses,  and  to  be  delivered  from  temptation. 
The  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  heart's  obedience  to 
His  will,  the  certainty  of  having  eternal  posses- 
sions, and  of  being  protected  against  evil,  do  not 
exclude  the  eschatological  conception  of  the  king- 
dom, and  indeed  only  obtain  their  full  signifi- 
cance by  their  relations  to  that  idea.  It  is  evident 
that  the  terms  of  the  prayer  would  be  very 
different,  were  they  not  directed  to  guarantee  the 
union  abeady  existing  of  the  individual  with  his 
Heavenly  Father. 

The  saying,  "  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he 
gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul,"  ^ 
does  not  signify  precisely  "  the  infinite  value 
of  the  human  soul,^  an  abstraction  made  of  the 
destiny  of  man  in  the  future  kingdom.  Jesus 
said  that  life  must  be  lost  in  time  to  be  gained  in 
eternity,  and  that  he  who  seeks  it  or  gains  it  now 
loses  it  for  the  future.  Now,  the  gain  of  every- 
thing else  cannot  compensate  for  the  loss  of  life  : 
I  Mark  viii.  36.  2  Page  40. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF  HEAVEN  69 

he  who  should  gain  the  whole  world  would  have 
no  advantage  of  it  as  soon  as  he  were  dead :  and 
that  is  the  position  of  the  man  who  will  not  sacri- 
fice his  life  for  the  kingdom,  from  the  wish  to 
keep  it  for  the  world  :  he  will  lose  everything' 
by  his  death,  the  world  he  loves  and  has  served, 
and  the  kingdom  to  which  he  has  no  right.  When 
Jesus  said,  "  Ye  are  of  more  value  than  many 
sparrows,"  ^  it  was  not  to  exalt  the  value  of  the 
soul,  but  to  encourage  His  disciples  to  have  faith ; 
the  God  that  watches  over  the  sparrows  watches 
even  more  over  men.  Truly  the  Saviour  cared 
for  every  human  soul,  the  souls  of  the  poor  man, 
the  sinner,  the  woman,  the  child,  but  he  did  not 
consider  the  value  of  the  soul  in  itself  in  order  to 
sum  up  all  religion  in  the  actual  union  of  each 
soul  with  God.  He  made  it  sufficiently  clear,  in 
the  Parable  of  the  Talents,  that  human  existence 
is  of  value  according  to  the  fruits  it  produces  for 
the  Divine  Judgment.  The  soul  or  the  life  has 
no  worth  save  by  its  destiny,  through  the 
kingdom  that  God  offers  to  it,  and  it  ought  to 
deserve. 

Jesus  summed  up  all  duty  in  the   precept  of 
love.     But  this    teaching   does    not   exhaust   the 
moral  of   the  Gospel   and   does  not  indicate  its 
^  Luke  xii.  7. 


70        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

final  sanction.  To  the  man  wlio  asked  what  he 
must  do  to  possess  eternal  life,  that  is,  to  have 
a  place  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  Jesus  replied 
by  enumerating  those  commandments  of  the 
Decalogue  that  relate  to  the  neighbour,  then 
enjoined  him  to  give  all  he  had  to  the  poor  and 
follow  Himself.^  Love,  therefore,  is  not  at  an 
end  in  itself;  charity  leads  to  the  kingdom, 
sacrificing  the  temporal  to  gain  the  eternal.  It 
is  vain  to  force  the  opinion  that  the  kingdom 
is  *'only  the  treasure  possessed  by  the  soul  in 
the  eternal  and  merciful  God,"  ^  if  by  this  treasure 
of  actual  possession  charity  is  to  be  understood. 
Love  is  demanded  now  to  assure  the  possession 
of  God  later,  when  the  glory  of  his  reign  shall 
appear. 

To  support  the  idea  of  a  kingdom  purely 
personal  and  already  present,  there  remains  a 
text  of  the  third  Gospel,  whose  authenticity  is 
not  very  certain,  nor  its  meaning  very  clear. 
When  asked  by  the  Pharisees,  when  the  kingdom 
of  God  should  come,  Jesus  answered  them,  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observation ; 
neither  shall  they  say,  Lo  here !  or  Lo  there !  for 
behold   the   kingdom  of  God   is   within   you."  ^ 

1  Mark  x.  17-22.  2  p^ge  49. 

3  Luke  xvii.  20,  21. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  71 

Tliis  statement  is  only  found  in  Luke,  and  is 
part  of  the  preamble  that  the  author  has  drawn  up 
for  an  eschatological  discourse/  whose  substance 
has  been  preserved  by  Matthew.^  It  is  highly 
probable  that  only  this  discourse  belongs  to  the 
source  common  to  both  Gospels,  and  that  the 
saying  quoted  comes  from  Luke  or  his  particular 
tradition.  The  general  style  of  this  introduction 
is  that  of  the  evangelist,  who  readily  invents  the 
surroundings  of  the  discourses  he  repeats  ;  and 
the  idea  of  the  present  kingdom  does  not  accord 
well  with  the  discourse  itself,  which  concerns 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  unless  the 
assertion,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you," 
is  to  be  understood  as  a  prophecy  meaning, 
''The  kingdom  of  God  is  about  to  become 
manifest  among  you."  The  fact  of  revision 
comes  out  in  what  is  said  of  the  kingdom,  "  Lo 
here !  or  Lo  there ! "  a  phrase  which  really 
applies  to  the  Messiah,  and  is,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  used  of  Him  a  couple  of  verses  later.  If 
the  saying  was  really  pronounced  by  Jesus  and 
addressed  to  the  Pharisees,  as  the  evangelist 
states,  it  cannot  mean  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  in  them,  that  is,  in  their  souls,  for  these 

1  Luke  xvii.  23-37. 
«  Matt.  xxiv.  23,  26-27,  37-39,  17-18,  40-41,  28. 


72        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Pharisees  do  not  accept  the  gospel,  and  have 
no  share  in  the  kingdom.  There  would  be  much 
subtlety  in  leaving  a  restriction  to  be  understood, 
as  though  Jesus  had  meant  to  say,  "  The  kingdom 
of  God  is  such  that  it  might  be  realized  in  you, 
if  you  desired  and  were  worthy  of  it."  Tbe  most 
natural  meaning  would  be,  ''  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  in  the  midst  of  you,"  and  it  is  perhaps  in  this 
way  that  the  writer  understands  it,  unless  he  has 
simply  wished  to  say,  that  the  kingdom  will 
come  when  it  is  least  expected,  and  before  there 
is  time  to  announce  that  it  has  appeared  in  this 
place  or  in  that.  Before  it  can  be  maintained 
with  authority  that  Jesus  understood  this  saying 
in  another  sense  than  this,  other  texts  are  needed 
of  undoubted  meaning  and  authenticity,  express- 
ing the  internal  and  actual  character  of  the 
kingdom.  But  it  is  evident  that  such  texts  are 
wanting,  and  as  to  sacrifice  the  rest  of  the 
gospel  to  the  doubtful  interpretation  of  a  solitary 
passage  would  be  to  go  contrary  to  the  most 
elementary  principles  of  criticism,  under  the 
most  favourable  view,  and  taking  the  authenticity 
of  the  saying  for  granted,  Jesus  must  be  held  to 
have  spoken  of  the  presence  of  the  kingdom  in 
its  commencement  and  its  preparation  by  the 
gospel. 


CHAPTER   III 

The  historian  must  resist  the  temptation  to 
modernize  the  conception  of  the  kingdom.  If 
the  theologian  feels  bound  to  supply  an  inter- 
pretation for  the  needs  of  the  present  day,  no 
one  will  contest  his  right,  provided  he  does  not 
confuse  his  commentary  with  the  primitive  mean- 
ing of  the  gospel  texts;  and  while  this  is  true 
for  the  conception  of  the  kingdom,  it  is  also  true 
for  the  appreciation  of  the  relations  of  the  gospel 
to  the  different  aspects  of  human  life.  Nothing 
is  easier  than  to  determine  historically  the 
attitude  of  Jesus  towards  the  world,  towards 
earthly  possessions,  towards  human  law,  towards 
civilization.  The  vision  of  the  approaching  king- 
dom must  have  inspired  Him  with  a  kind  of 
disdain  for  all  these  things,  and  the  texts  leave 
no  possible  doubt  as  to  His  sentiments.  But 
just  as  means  have  been  found  to  bring  back 
upon  Himself  and  the  present  the  regard  that 
the  Saviour  directed  towards  the  future,  success 


74        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

is  equally  looked  for  if  not  in  showing  Him  as 
positively  interested  in  present  life,  social  ques- 
tions, political  order,  and  human  progress,  at  least 
in  attenuating  His  indifference  towards  them  all. 

We  are  told,^  that  the  gospel  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  renunciation  of  the  world,  but  that 
it  merely  attacks  riches,  anxiety  for  earthly 
matters,  and  egoism :  the  proof  that  Jesus  was 
no  ascetic,  is  that  He  ate  and  drank  like  all  the 
world,  that  He  permitted  His  feet  to  be  washed 
and  His  head  to  be  anointed ;  that  He  permitted 
his  followers  to  continue  their  occupations  and 
their  way  of  life ;  that  He  did  not  organize  the 
little  group  of  disciples  into  a  monastic  order,  with 
a  code  of  laws  and  definite  spiritual  exercises ; 
that  later  the  apostles  taught  that  the  labourer 
is  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  that  they  did  not 
separate  from  their  wives  ;  and,  finally,  that  the 
gospel  is  opposed  to  the  world  only  in  that  its 
spirit  consists  in  humility  and  faith  in  God,  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  the  love  of  our  neighbour. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  cannot  be  contested  that 
Jesus  preached  self-denial,  without  establishing  a 
discipline  of  renunciation.  But  the  attempt  to 
draw  an  absolute  distinction  between  the  spirit 
of  detachment  from  the  world,  and  the  effective 
1  Pages  50-56. 


THE   KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  75 

renunciation  of  it,  however  legitimate  in  itself  and 
useful  for  present-day  application  of  gospel 
maxims,  does  not  appear  in  a  historical  sense  to 
be  founded  on  the  words  of  the  Saviour.  The 
expectation  of  the  great  event  explains  why 
Jesus  put  forward  no  actual  disciplinary  ordi- 
nance ;  why  He  submitted  neither  Himself  nor 
His  followers  to  any  special  mode  of  life  tliat 
might  have  interfered  with  the  preaching  of  the 
kingdom ;  why  He  considered  the  gospel  as  a 
message  of  joy,  incompatible  with  the  bodily 
privations  and  fasts  imposed  on  themselves  by 
the  Pharisees  and  the  disciples  of  John.^  But 
it  is  for  the  same  reason  that  He  exacted  from 
all  those  who  aspii^ed  to  the  kingdom,  not  a  dis- 
position willing  eventually  to  sacrifice  possessions 
and  family  affections  to  the  superior  interest  of 
salvation,  but  the  immediate  relinquishment  of 
all  to  follow  Him.  A  man  must  lose  his  life 
to  save  it ;  he  must  hate  father,  mother,  wife, 
children,  brothers,  and  sisters  to  devote  himself 
to  the  work  of  the  kingdom ;  he  must  sell  his 
goods  and  give  unto  the  poor ;  it  is  not  enough 
to  be  free  from  avarice  and  temporal  cares,  he 
must  abandon  the  riches  and  occupations  of  this 
world.  The  comparison  of  the  disciples  to  the 
»  Mark  ii.  19. 


76        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

birds  of  the  air  and  the  flowers  of  the  fields  shows 
that  it  is  not  only  anxiety  for  bodily  needs,  but 
even  work  that  is  forbidden  or  discouraged,  and 
though  God  is  to  be  asked  for  daily  bread,  it  is 
not  in  the  least  intended  that  the  prayer  should 
show  anything  but  confidence  in  God  without 
personal  anxiety ;  rather  does  he  who  prays  thus 
rely  entirely  on  God  for  his  means  of  existence. 
The  absolute  nature  of  the  hope  for  the  impend- 
ing establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven 
corresponds  to  the  absolute  nature  of  the  renun- 
ciation demanded  for  admission  therein,  and  the 
absolute  nature  of  the  confidence  in  Him  Who 
cares  for  the  birds,  and  will  assuredly  come  to 
the  aid  of  men,  His  children. 

It  is  in  no  way  astonishing  that  such  a  dis- 
cipline could  not  be  imposed  in  all  its  rigour 
on  every  one,  even  during  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
or  that  further  departures  from  it  should  have 
occurred  after  Him;  but  this  is  no  reason  for 
introducing  into  the  thought  of  the  Master  the 
limitations  that  the  nature  of  things  and  the 
actual  conditions  of  existence  set  to  its  detailed 
application.  It  was  equally  necessary  for  the 
success  of  the  gospel  that  the  discipline  should 
have  had  in  the  beginning  this  simple,  unmodified 
character,  and  that  later  all  those  modifications 


THE   KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  77 

should  have  been  made  in  it  that  the  changing 
circumstances  demanded,  in  order  to  adapt  what 
had  been  addressed  to  a  world  believed  to  be  near 
its  end,  to  a  world  that  had  proved  more  enduring. 
Herr   Harnack  ^   does   not  rank   himself  with 
those  who  see  in  the  gospel  first   and   foremost 
a  social  doctrine  for  the  relief  of  the  oppressed, 
either   from   admiration   of   such   a   teaching,  or 
because,  on  the  contrary,  they  regard  it  as  entirely 
chimerical  and  impracticable.     Nor  is  he  among 
those  who  represent  Christ  as  "  conservative,"  a 
respecter    of    the    priesthood,    and    of    acquired 
fortunes.     He  thinks  that  Jesus,  while  regarding 
the  possession  of  riches  as  a  danger  for  the  soul, 
did  not  desire  general  poverty  as  the  foundation 
of   His   heavenly   kingdom,    and   was   forced   to 
battle  with  misery  and  make  it  disappear.     Christ 
neither  gave  nor  possessed  an  economic  programme 
for  the    conquest  of  poverty:   He  did  more,  by 
indicating  a  new  social  duty  in  the  precept  of 
charity.     The  gospel  is  socialistic  in  so  far  as  it 
desires  "  to  establish  among  men  a  community  as 
comprehensive  as  human  life,  and  as  profound  as 
human  misery."     Jesus  appreciates  the  common 
needs   of  life — shelter,  food,  decent   living;    He 
desired  that  these  essential  possessions  should  be 
*  Pages  5G-65. 


78        THE    GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

given  to  all  who  could  not  procure  them  ;  He  even 
seems  to  have  had  glimpses  of  a  possible  society 
wherein  wealth  should  not  exist  as  private  property 
in  the  strict  sense,  but  here  His  conception  of  the 
approaching  end  of  the  world  must  be  borne  in 
mind,  and  is  it  not  well  to  consider  it  in  regard 
to  the  rest?  If  Jesus  did  not  desire  general 
poverty  as  a  condition  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  is 
it  not  because  He  conceived  the  kingdom  inde- 
pendently of  human  society  ?  It  is  impossible  to 
say  that  He  proposed  to  banish  misery,  in  the 
sense  that  He  was  constantly  preoccupied  with 
remedying  it  by  the  regular  means  of  a  wise  dis- 
tribution of  help,  recommended  to  the  possessors 
of  riches.  The  disappearance  of  poverty  is  only 
foreseen,  perhaps  only  desired,  as  a  consequence 
of  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom.  The  com- 
plete renunciation  exacted  from  the  rich  man  is 
rather  in  his  own  spiritual  interest  than  for  the 
relief  of  the  poor  to  whom  the  kingdom  is  pro- 
mised. The  conception  of  a  society  where  riches 
should  be  so  distributed  that  none  should  lack 
food,  clothing,  and  shelter,  is  not  really  present 
in  the  gospel,  and  it  needs  a  certain  amount  of 
predisposition  to  find  that  when  Jesus,  the  Son 
of  Man,  had  not  "  where  to  lay  His  head,"  ^  He 
1  Matt.  viii.  20. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF  HEAVEN  79 

desired  for  every  one  the  shelter  He  Himself  did 
not  possess. 

The  historical  truth  is  that  the  idea  of  a  society 
regularly  constituted  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  gospel  does  not  exist  apart  from  the  vision 
of  the  approaching  kingdom,  where  there  shall  be 
neither  rich  nor  poor,  where  there  shall  be  no 
question  of  private  property  or  collective  property, 
and  where  Divine  happiness  is  the  common  posses- 
sion of  all.  There  remains  only  for  the  believer 
the  possibility,  the  right,  the  duty  to  draw  from 
this  ideal  of  the  kingdom,  as  from  that  of  renun- 
ciation and  from  the  precept  of  charity,  such 
applications  as  are  suitable  to  any  given  state  of 
human  society.  There  is  no  need  to  quarrel  with 
the  Franciscans  on  the  ground  that  Jesus,  when 
He  bade  His  Apostles  live  by  the  gospel,  did  not 
authorize  them  to  beg. 

In  His  relations  with  established  authority, 
the  Saviour,  we  are  told,  attacked  the  "political 
Church  and  the  Pharisees,"  but  took  up  another 
attitude  towards  "the  real  autliority,  that  which 
bears  the  sword."  He  recognized  a  definite  right 
in  this  authority,  and  never  set  Himself  against 
it.  Even  the  prohibition  against  taking  an  oath 
should  not  be  extended  "  to  include  the  oath  takeo 
before  the  authorities."      Caesar  has  his  rights  in 


8o        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

the  sphere  of  his  purely  temporal  power :  let  his 
tribute  be  rendered  to  him.  In  itself,  this  power, 
resting  as  it  does  on  force,  has  no  moral  authority. 
The  true  disciples  of  the  gospel  will  keep  them- 
selves from  the  exercise  of  this  power  of  domina- 
tion :  they  are  to  know  that  the  first  among  them 
is  the  servant  of  all.  Did  Jesus  reject  or  sanction 
*'  human  law  "  ?  He  seems  to  have  had  no  con- 
fidence in  human  justice,  and  exhorts  His  disciples 
not  to  claim  "their  rights,"  to  let  themselves  be 
robbed  and  beaten  without  attempt  to  exact  repara- 
tion for  the  wrongs  done  to  them.  From  this  it  has 
been  concluded  that  the  gospel  is  the  negation  of 
all  codes,  of  civil  law  as  well  as  of  canonical  law. 
Herr  Harnack  thinks  that  Jesus  had  only  indi- 
vidual cases  in  His  mind,  and  that  He  was  not 
thinking  of  the  possibility  of  attack  by  external 
enemies,  nor  of  the  public  authority  interested  in 
the  maintenance  of  order  and  the  safeguarding  of 
the  existence  and  welfare  of  citizens,  nor  of  a 
nation  attacked  unjustly.^ 

Such  a  gap  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  could  not 
fail  to  be  significant.  But  the  manner  in  which 
the  learned  author  interprets  his  texts  lacks 
exactitude.  Jesus  bids  His  disciples,  without  any 
restricting  phrases,  love  their  enemies  and  do  goo  J 
1  Pages  65-74. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  8i 

to   those   who   persecute   them,    turn   the    other 
cheek  to  blows,  and  abandon  the  coat  to  him  who 
has  wished  to  take  the  cloak.     The  persecutor, 
the  insulter,  the  robber,  does  not  belong  to  the 
society  of  the  disciples,  and  it  is  not  with  any  pre- 
vision of  his  possible  conversion   that  they  are 
commanded  to  endure  him  :  it  is  always  by  virtue 
of  that  supreme  indifference  to  human  interests 
that  is,  historically,  the  form  taken  by  the  gospel. 
Why  claim  a  right  now,  when  eternal  justice  is  so 
close  at  hand  ?     The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  for  the 
persecuted.      What  matters  what  one  possesses, 
when    nothing   is   needed   to   participate  in   the 
reign  of  God  ?     It  is  in  the  same  spirit  that  Jesus 
deals  with   constituted  authority.      He  does  not 
contest  the  legitimacy  of  the  priesthood,  but  He 
knows  that  the  reign  of  the  law  is  about  to  give 
place  to  the  era  of  the  Messiah.     He  is  not  in 
revolt   against    Caesar,  but   He  knows  that    the 
power  of  man  is  declining  to  its  end.     It  is  not 
for  Him  to  pronounce  opinion  on  the  value  of  in- 
stitutions which  will  have  no  place  in  the  kin"-- 
dom  of  heaven.      It  is  absolutely  gratuitous  to 
suppose  that  He  admitted  the   obligation  of  the 
oath  before  authorities.     When  He  replied  to  the 
adjuration  of  the  High  Priest,  He  Himself  took 
no  oath.     His  way  of  regarding  all  human    and 

o 


82        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

temporal  order  is  obviously  inspired  by  the  senti- 
ment of  His  superior  vocation  in  a  totally  different 
scheme  of  things,  to  be  set  in  place  of  this 
temporary  and  defective  organization,  represented 
by  unjust  men,  who  must  be  endured  until  the 
destined  hour  shall  come. 

It  follows  that  the  gospel  contains  no  formal 
declaration  for  or  against  the  constitution  of 
human  society  in  the  world  as  it  is.  The  necessity 
of  human  law  cannot  be  deduced  from  the  gospel, 
nor  can  any  foundation  for  it  be  found  there : 
both  exist  independently  of  the  gospel,  which  is 
not  called  upon  to  create  them,  or  to  replace 
them,  and  can  only  influence  them  by  its  spirit. 

For  the  rest,  it  is  not  evident  that  the  gospel 
is  only  addressed  "  to  the  inner  soul  of  man  that 
is  always  the  same."  The  gospel  of  Jesus  is 
addressed  to  the  whole  man,  to  snatch  him  from 
the  conditions  normal  to  his  present  life.  This 
violent  effort  was  indispensable  for  the  foundation 
of  Christianity,  and  analogous  efforts  may  still  be 
necessary  to  recall  to  men's  minds  that  their  prin- 
cipal interest  is  superior  to  temporal  advantage. 
It  is  certain,  for  the  historian,  that  the  gospel 
has  rather  regarded  human  law  and  political  and 
social  economy  as  abstractions,  and  that  it  had 
no  formal  intention  of  regenerating  them,  unless 


THE   KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  83 

by  the  radical  transformation  implied  in  the  ideal 
of  the  kingdom. 

Finally,  observes  the  author/  if  the  gospel  had 
taken  any  thought  for  science,  art,  or  civilization,  it 
would  have  bound  itself  to  one  particular  form  of 
human  culture,  and  would  have  been  hampered 
in  its  subsequent  development,  as  the  Roman 
Church  is  to-day  through  its  connection  with  the 
philosophy,  political  organization,  and  general 
culture  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Intellectual  progress 
and  civilization  do  not  constitute  the  whole  of 
man  or  of  humanity.  Moral  progress  is  of  the 
first  importance,  that  progress  that  Jesus  was  con- 
scious of  preparing  and  safeguarding  when  He 
revealed  to  mankind  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God. 

How  far  apart  are  the  truth  of  history  and 
the  theory  proposed  with  such  ardour  and  convic- 
tion !  The  Catholic  Church  is  only  bound  to  the 
science  and  political  form  of  the  Middle  Ages 
because  it  does  not  clioose  to  detach  itself  from 
them.  If  the  gospel  was  not  bound  to  any  form 
of  science  and  civilization,  it  was  by  the  nature  of 
things  bound  to  the  lack  of  science  and  of  culture, 
which  was  none  the  less  inconvenient.  If  it  has 
since  been  the  more  easily  adapted  to  different 
»  Pages  74-78. 


84       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

conditions  of  knowledge  and  civilization,  there 
has  none  the  less  remained  with  it,  because  of 
its  origin,  a  kind  of  repugnance  and  distrust  of 
civilization  and  science,  generally  returned  with 
interest.  Is  Protestant  orthodoxy,  founded  on 
the  gospel,  less  troubled  by  the  modern  movement 
than  the  Catholic  Church  ?  It  is  incontestable 
that  intellectual  progress  and  civilization  repre- 
sent neither  the  supreme  end  of  life  nor  the  most 
precious  possession  of  humanity.  But  does  not  the 
gospel  entirely  ignore  their  secondary  value  ?  It 
should  be  enough  to  say  that  the  gospel  is  the 
factor  without  which  science  and  progress  do  not 
really  elevate  mankind.  Suppose  we  were  asked 
if  the  gospel  might  not  have  come  to  an  end,  had 
it  not  come  in  contact  with  Greek  science  ?  Is 
it  really  certain  that  this  alliance  contributed 
nothing  towards  the  preservation  of  its  moral 
essence  ?  However,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
gospel,  science  and  civilization  were  not  even 
accessory  advantages :  they  were  nothing,  and 
could  be  nothing,  compared  with  the  vision  of 
the  kingdom. 

Science  and  civilization  on  their  side  also  have 
justification  for  their  existence  apart  from  the 
gospel,  which  is  not  destined  to  promote  them, 
and  cannot  take  their  place  in  so  far  as  they  are 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  85 

actually  useful  and  beneficial  for  humanity.  The 
independence  of  the  gospel  with  regard  to 
matters  of  intelligence  is  only  a  theoretical  hypo- 
thesis. In  historical  reality,  and  among  all  those 
who  have  believed,  or  who  do  believe,  evangelical 
faith  is  coloured  by  the  relative  ignorance  or 
knowledge  of  its  adepts. 

As  to  the  moral  revolution  which  it  is  held 
Christ  wished  to  bring  about  in  the  world,  it 
cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that  Jesus  only 
announced  it  in  the  kingdom  about  to  come,  and 
that  He  did  not  represent  it  as  a  work  of  slow 
progress.  The  Parables  of  the  Workers  in  the 
Vineyard  and  of  the  Talents,  that  are  quoted  to 
show  how  the  kingdom  extends  on  the  earth, 
have  not  this  allegorical  significance;  the  first 
means  that  the  kingdom  will  be  given  to  those 
who  come  late  to  faith  and  the  practice  of  well- 
doing, as  well  as  to  those  who  have  given  all 
their  lives  to  duty ;  the  second  signifies  that  the 
kingdom  will  only  belong  to  those  whose  life  has 
been  productive  of  the  fruits  of  virtue;  the  two 
complete  one  another,  but  both  alike  presuppose 
a  kingdom  that  is  to  come,  without  assuming  its 
existence  in  the  present  life. 

In  fine,  it  is  not  precisely  by  the  knowledge  of 
God  that  Christ  looks  to  save  mankind;  speakin'^ 


86       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

to  Jews,  He  supposes  God  to  be  already  recog- 
nized, and  does  not  even  pretend  to  make  Him 
known  in  a  new  aspect.  The  message  of  Jesus  is 
contained  in  the  announcement  of  the  approach- 
ing kingdom,  and  the  exhortation  to  penitence  as 
a  means  of  sharing  therein.  All  else,  though  it 
is  the  common  preoccupation  of  humanity,  is  as 
though  non-existent. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  intrinsic  worth  and 
moral  efficacy  of  the  hope  of  which  Christ  was  the 
interpreter,  nothing  was  done,  even  at  the  time 
when  this  hope  was  made  manifest,  to  reconcile 
it  with  all  the  realities  to  which  it  has  since 
accommodated  itself.  The  work  of  adaptation 
still  continues,  and  Herr  Harnack,  following 
many  others,  has  set  himself  to  toil  at  it.  But 
he  is  too  ready  to  suppose  that  the  agreement  was 
complete  from  the  beginning,  or  at  any  rate  that 
he  has  only  to  take  the  gospel  just  as  it  is,  to 
apply  it  to  all  possible  conditions  of  mankind. 
As  the  gospel  was  appropriate  to  the  very  special 
circumstances  under  which  it  saw  the  light,  it  has 
first  been  necessary  to  detach  it  from  its  earliest 
connections,  which  were  not  in  the  least  with  the 
preoccupations  of  actual  lif^  (the  anxiety  to 
ameliorate  human  conditions  in  this  world,  social 
and  political  law,  and  the  progress  of  culture). 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  87 

but  with  a  kind  of  violent  and  anarchic  state  far 
outside  any  civilization  then  existing.  The 
gospel  has  not  entered  the  world  as  an  uncon- 
ditioned absolute  doctrine,  summed  up  in  a  unique 
and  steadfast  truth,  but  as  a  living  faith,  con- 
crete and  complex,  whose  evolution  proceeds  with- 
out doubt  from  the  internal  force  which  has  made 
it  enduring,  but  none  the  less  has  been,  in  every- 
thing and  from  the  beginning,  influenced  by  the 
surroundings  wherein  the  faith  was  born  and  has 
since  developed.  This  faith  took  shape  in  the 
idea  of  the  reign  of  God.  The  conception  of  God 
the  Father  is  only  one  element,  traditional  in  its 
origin,  like  all  the  rest,  and  has  its  history,  like 
all  the  rest,  in  the  general  development  of 
Christianity. 


^ 


SECTION  Til 
THE  SON  OF  GOD 

INTEODUCTION 

Given  a  very  limited  conception  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  an  equally  limited  conception  of  the 
mission  of  the  Saviour  is  sure  to  correspond.  The 
Christ  of  Herr  Harnack  ^  not  only  differs  as  a 
matter  of  fact  from  the  Christ  of  tradition,  but 
also  from  any  image  that  the  historian  can  derive 
from  a  criticism  of  the  Gospels  alone.  Jesus,  we 
are  told,  is  the  Son  of  God  in  so  far  as  He  reveals 
the  Father,  but  the  Father  alone  belongs  to  the 
gospel ;  Jesus  believed  Himself  the  Messiah,  but 
this  Jewish  conception  is  not  otherwise  bound  up 
with  that  of  the  Divine  Sonship :  "  it  was  the 
condition  necessary  for  the  recognition  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Jewish  religion  of  Him  Who  had 
received  the  inward  summons ;  "  ^  the  expiatory 
1  Pages  79-103.  2  Page  89. 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  89 

death  of  Jesus  made  Him  the  Lord,  and  whatever 
is  thought  of  the  narratives  of  the  resurrection,  it 
was  in  the  tomb  of  Christ  that  indestructible 
faith  was  born  in  the  victory  of  man  over  death 
and  in  an  eternal  life. 


CHAPTER   I 

"  Jesus  has  explained  very  clearly  in  one  of  His 
discourses  how  and  why  He  called  Himself  the 
Son  of  God.  It  is  in  Matthew  and  not  in  John 
that  the  saying  occurs — '  None  knoweth  the  Son 
save  the  Father,  nor  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and 
he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him.'  The 
knowledge  of  God  is  the  sphere  of  the  Divine 
Sonship.  It  is  with  this  knowledge  of  God  that 
Jesus  has  learnt  to  regard  the  Holy  Being  Who 
governs  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  as  Father,  as 
His  Father.  This  is  why  the  consciousness  He 
had  of  being  the  Son  of  God  is  no  more  than 
the  practical  consequence  of  His  knowledge 
that  God  was  Father  and  His  Father.  Properly 
understood,  all  that  the  name  of  Son  implies 
is  a  knowledge  of  God.  But  two  points  further 
must  be  noted;  Jesus  is  convinced  that  He 
knows  God  as  none  before  Him  has  known,  and 
He  knows  that  His  mission  is  to  communicate 
to    all   others,    by   His    words   and    deeds,    this 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  91 

knowledge  of  God,  and   in   the   same  way  His 
Divine  Sonship."  ^ 

All  this  edifice  of  argument,  with  its  relation  to 
Herr  Harnack's  conception  of  the  heavenly  king- 
dom which  it  is  superfluous  to  point  out,  is 
founded,  in  the  final  analysis,  on  a  solitary  text, 
whose  origin  is  carefully  made  prominent.  It  is 
a  passage  in  the  synoptics,  not  in  John,  and  to 
be  read  not  only  in  Matthew,^  but  also  in  Luke.^ 
But  this  text  alone  ought  not  to  serve  as  the 
basis  for  a  historical  examination  of  the  idea  to  be 
formed,  from  a  study  of  the  Gospels,  of  the  mission 
that  Jesus  attributed  to  Himself.  It  is  not  put 
forward  as  an  explanation  of  the  Divine  Sonship, 
but  as  the  expression  of  a  permanent  relation 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  To  say  that 
this  relation  constitutes,  properly  speaking,  the 
Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus,  is  a  deduction  of  the 
theologian,  not  the  expression  of  a  doctrine  or  a 
sentiment  that  Jesus  Himself  formulated. 

More  than  one  passage  in  the  Gospels  can  be 
found  without  difficulty,  from  which  the  con- 
clusion is  clear  that  the  title.  Son  of  God,  was  for 
the  Jews,  the  disciples,  and  for  the  Saviour  Him- 
self the  equivalent  of  the  Messiah.     It  is  enough 

1  Page  81.  2  Matt.  xi.  25-30. 

3  Luke  X.  21-24. 


92        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

to  recall  the  different  versions  of  the  confession  of 
Peter  in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  the  question- 
ing of  Jesus  by  the  High  Priest.  In  Mark,^  Peter 
says  to  the  Saviour,  **Thou  art  the  Christ."  In 
Matthew,^  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God."  In  Luke,»  ''  Thou  art  the  Christ  of 
God."  In  the  second  Gospel*  Caiaphas  says  to 
Jesus,  "  Art  Thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed  ?  "  In  the  first  Gospel,^  "  I  adjure  Thee 
by  the  living  God  to  tell  us  if  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God."  In  the  third,^  the  priests  first 
demand  of  Jesus  if  He  is  the  Christ,  and  because 
He  does  not  reply  clearly,  they  repeat  the  ques- 
tion in  the  form,  "  Art  Thou  then  the  Son  of 
God  ? "  to  which  Jesus  replies  in  the  affirmative, 
as  in  the  other  two  synoptic  Gospels.  Whatever 
mental  or  moral  experience  it  may  have  been 
which  produced  this  consciousness  of  Divine  Son- 
ship,  it  is  certain  that  all  who  heard  Jesus,  friends 
or  enemies,  identified  it  with  the  consciousness  of 
being  the  Messiah,  or  the  pretension  to  that  posi- 
tion. It  is  somewhat  rash  to-day  to  maintain 
that  the  essentia]  significance  of  the  title  of  Son 
of  God  was  different  for  Christ  Himself,  and  that 

1  Mark  viii.  29.  2  Matt.  xvi.  16. 

3  Luke  ix.  20.  *  Mark  xiv.  61.  ^  Matt.  xxvi.  63. 

6  Luke  xxii.  67-70. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  93 

its  real  justification  was  the  consciousness  of  God 
as  Father. 

The  text  quoted,  taken  in  its  natural  sense,  has 
a  meaning  quite  different  from  that  sought  to  be 
extracted  from  it.  It  follows  a  prayer  that  Jesus 
addresses  to  God  as  "  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth ; "  for  in  the  mind  of  Christ  the  idea  of 
God  the  Father  is  necessarily  bound  up  with 
that  of  the  sovereign  Euler  of  the  universe.  The 
Saviour  adds  that  "  all  things  are  delivered  unto 
Him  by  His  Father."  Taken  strictly,  these 
words  only  apply  to  the  glorified  Christ,  and  the 
compiler  of  the  first  Gospel  presently  uses  a 
similar  expression  of  the  Saviour  risen  from  the 
dead.^  It  is  only  by  a  forced  construction  that 
Lhey  can  be  limited  to  the  things  that  Jesus  has 
learnt  from  the  Father,  the  revelation  that  He 
has  been  charged  to  bring  to  mankind.  It  is 
maintained  that  the  principal  part  of  this  rcA'ela- 
tion  is  the  consciousness  that  the  Son  has  of  a 
good  God.  But  the  text  was  not  intended  to 
support  such  a  theory.  Could  it  be  said  that  the 
Father,  Who  alone  knoweth  the  Son,  as  the 
Son  alone  knoweth  the  Father,  had  also  received 
a  revelation  from  the  Son  of  which  He  was  to 
be  tlie  interpreter,  and  was  only  the  Father 
1  Cf.  Mcatt.  xxviii.  18. 


94        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

through  His  knowledge  of  the  Son  ?     Is  there, 
then,  a  religion  of  the  Son  that  the  Father  must 
teach,  as  the  Son   teaches  that  of  the   Father  ? 
Obviously   the   text   indicates   a     transcendental 
relationship,  whence  springs  the  lofty  dignity  of 
Christ,  and  not  a  psychological  reality,  which  in 
regard  to  God  is  clearly  impossible.     Father  and 
Son  are  not  here  simply  religious  terms,  but  have 
already  become  metaphysical  theological  expres- 
sions, and  dogmatic  speculation  has  been  able  to 
take  possession  of  them,  without  much  modifica- 
tion of  their  sense.     There  is  but  one  Father  and 
one  Son,  constituted  in  some  way  by  the  know- 
ledge they  have  of  one  another,  absolute  entities 
whose  relationship  is  also  absolute.    The  intention 
of   the  passage  is  not  so  much  to  explain  how 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  as  to  give  prominence 
to  the   Christ,  by  identifying  Him,  as  the  Son, 
with    eternal    wisdom    that    God    alone    knows 
in  its  entirety,  although  it  is  revealed  to  man- 
kind, while  on  its  side  the  wisdom  alone  possesses 
and    represents    the    full     knowledge    of    God, 
although     it    reveals     God     to     His     creatures, 
as    far    as  they    are   capable    of    receiving    the 
revelation.      The   gospel    saying,    therefore,    has 
a    totally   different    significance   to   that    needed 
for   the   theory  that   the    Sonship    of  Jesus  was 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  95 

acquired  on  the  earth  by  His  knowledge  of  the 
Father. 

On  the  other  hand,  for  the  historian,  it  proves 
much  less,  because  it  is  difficult  to  see  in  it  the 
literal  and  exact  expression  of  a  declaration  made 
by  Christ  to  His  disciples.  It  occurs  in  a  kind 
of  psalm,  where  the  influence  of  the  prayer  that 
closes  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  ^  is  evident  both 
in  the  general  scope  and  in  several  details.  Both 
passages  begin  with  the  praise  of  God,  and  there 
is  in  both  a  marked  preference  for  the  name  of 
Father  :  ^  the  declaration  concernincj  the  mutual 
knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  corresponds 
to  the  praise  of  wisdom  :  the  appeal  of  Christ 
to  the  weary  and  heavy  laden  seems  inspired  by 
the  invitation  that  wisdom  addresses  to  the  ignorant 
in  the  last  part  of  the  prayer  of  Ben-SiracK  These 
correspondences  are  not  accidental,  and  seeing 
that  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  Jesus  should 
have  wished  to  imitate  a  passage  of  Ecclesiasticus 
in  an  oration  or  discourse  apparently  quite  un- 
premeditated ;  seeing  that  the  entire  passage 
possesses  a  rhythm  distinctly  analogous  to  that 
of  the  canticles   reproduced  in  the  first  chapters 

1  Eccl.  li. 

2  Cf.  Eccl.  li.  10.  Reading  "  the  Lord  my  Father,"  and 
not  "  the  Lord,  Father  of  my  Lord." 


96        THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

of  Luke,  and  seeing  that  another  passage  can 
be  found  in  Matthew,^  where  Christ  appears  to 
be  identified  with  Divine  wisdom,  it  is  fairly 
probable  that,  notwithstanding  its  occurrence 
in  two  Gospels,  the  portion  including  the  text 
cited  by  Herr  Harnack  is,  at  any  rate  in  its 
actual  form,  a  product  of  the  Christian  tradition 
of  the  earlier  times.  It  is  always  a  valuable 
testimony,  as  far  as  concerns  the  conception  of 
Christ  in  the  early  age  of  the  Church;  but  a 
critic  must  use  it  with  the  greatest  care,  when  it 
is  a  question  of  establishing  the  idea  Christ  in 
His  teaching  gave  of  Himself,  His  Divine  Sonship, 
and  His  mission. 

Thus  the  text  upon  which  Herr  Harnack  has 
founded  his  theory  of  the  Son  of  God  is  no  more 
certain  in  its  interpretation,  and  favours  his  thesis 
no  more  than  does  the  one  where  he  finds  the 
definition  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  heart 
of  man.  The  gospel  conception  of  the  Son  of  God 
is  no  more  a  psychological  idea  signifying  a  relation 
of  the  soul  with  God  than  is  the  gospel  concep- 
tion of  the  kingdom.  There  is  absolutely  nothing 
to  prove  it ;  and  even  the  text  quoted  does  not 
say  that  Jesus  became  the  Son  because  He  was 
the  first  to  know  God  as  the  Father.  The  compiler 
1  Cf.  Matt,  xxiii.  34-36 ;  Luke  xi.  49-51. 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  97 

of  the  Gospel  has  not  the  least  intention  of 
indicating  that  God  was  not  known  as  the  Father, 
before  the  advent  of  Jesus :  he  wishes  to  say, 
and  says  very  clearly,  that  Christ  (the  Son)  alone 
knows  perfectly  God  (the  Father),  and  that  because 
He  is  the  Son,  just  as  the  Father,  God,  alone 
knows  perfectly  Christ  His  Son,  and  that  because 
He  is  the  Father,  because  He  is  God.  The  thouii^ht 
is  fundamentally  the  same  that  inspires  the 
passage  of  John,^  "No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him/' 
The  special  knowledge  of  the  Son  has  for  its 
subject  God  as  He  is,  and  is  not  merely  concerned 
with  the  goodness  of  God,  as  though  the  hearers 
of  Jesus  needed  to  be  taught  that  God  was 
their  Father.  Such  a  thought  is  as  foreign  to  the 
evangelists  as  it  would  have  been  to  the  Saviour 
Himself.  It  is  an  artificial  and  superficial 
explanation  of  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus. 

The  problem  of  the  consciousness  of  the 
Messiah  must  be  solved  by  other  means,  and  that 
without  keeping  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  in  the 
background.  It  is  truly  curious  to  see  how 
embarrassed  certain  Protestant  theologians  become 
over  this  "  Jewish  "  conception,  which  they  would 
1  John  i.  18. 

H 


98        THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

willingly  eliminate  from  the  gospel  and  attribute 
to  apostolic  tradition  in  order  to  shape  themselves 
a  Christ  after  their  own  heart.  Some  have 
already  maintained  that  the  Saviour  did  not 
believe  Himself  the  Messiah,  and  that  the  faith 
of  the  disciples  in  the  resurrection  was  the  force 
that  gave  Him  that  position  in  their  minds  and 
for  subsequent  tradition.  Herr  Harnack  does  not 
go  so  far.  His  Christ,  the  Son  who  reveals  the 
Divine  Goodness,  seems  to  assume  the  position 
of  Messiah  as  a  kind  of  costume  or  disguise 
suitable  for  dealing  with  the  Jews  ;  but  the  con- 
sciousness of  being  the  Son  of  God  preceded  in 
Him  the  consciousness  of  being  the  Messiah. 

It  would  be  well  to  see  upon  what  historical 
basis  this  theory  rests,  and  if  it  is  not  a  pure 
hypothesis.  Two  questions  must  be  distinguished 
in  it,  of  differing  degrees  of  clearness,  or  rather  of 
obscurity  ;  the  question  as  to  what  Jesus  believed 
Himself  to  be  and  declared  that  He  was,  and  the 
question  of  the  mental  processes  which  led  Him 
to  His  conclusion.  For  the  first  point  a  critical 
discussion  of  the  sources  of  the  gospel  should  fur- 
nish sufficiently  definite  indications  for  an  answ^er ; 
for  the  second,  there  is  only  room  for  conjecture, 
on  a  basis  of  the  knowledge  discovered  for  the  first. 

It  is  not  without  some  appearance  of  reason 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  99 

that  the  idea  that  Jesus  regarded  Himself  as  the 
Messiah  has  been  contested.    Side  by  side  with 
the  confused  idea,  frequently  held  both  now  and 
formerly,  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  there  could 
only   be    a    conception    equally   vague    of    the 
Messiah ;   and  just  as  the  way  out  of  the  con- 
tradictions involved    in    the    idea   of   the   king- 
dom seemed  to  lie  in  the  denial  of  all  that  was 
least     satisfying     to     the    modern     intelligence 
(namely,  its  eschatological  character),  so  to  escape 
from  the  difftculties  preseuted  by  the  conception 
of   the   Messiah,    it   has   been   thought   well   to 
suppress  it,  or  at  least  subordinate  it  entirely  to 
the  conception  formed  of  the  Son  of  God. 

The  gospel  testimony,  to  say  the  truth,  seems 
sufficiently   disconcerting.     The  preoccupation  of 
the  narrators  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
immediately  rouses  the  critic  to  see  if  the  point 
of  view  of  the  evangelists  conforms  to  the  facts. 
In  many  details  an  interest,  either  apologetic  or 
simply  didactic,  has  influenced  the  narration  of 
discourses    and    occurrences ;    but    this    natural 
tendency   would   not   fall   under  suspicion  were 
it  not  that  the  attitude  the  narratives   attribute 
to  the  Saviour  seems  at  first  sight  inexplicable. 
Jesus  did   not,  in  the  course  of   His  preaching, 
announce  Himself  as  the  Messiah;    He  silenced 


loo      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

those  possessed  of  devils  who  hailed  Him  as  the 
Son  of  God ;  further,  the  populace  never  imagined 
Him  to  have  this  mission ;  they  made  Him  the 
subject  of  most  extravagant  hypotheses  ^  without 
suspecting  the  truth.  The  disciples  alone  held 
Him  for  the  Christ  and  finally  declared  their 
faith  through  the  mouth  of  Simon;  but  the 
Master  forbade  them  to  speak  of  it  to  others,  so 
that  we  must  look  to  the  end  of  His  career, 
almost  to  His  last  day,  to  find  the  public  avowal 
of  His  dignity.  It  is  true  that,  after  the  Confession 
of  Simon  Peter,  Jesus  is  said  to  have  discoursed 
to  His  disciples  several  times  as  to  the  fate  that 
awaited  the  Messiah ;  but  as  the  general  scope 
of  His  discourses  is  founded  on  the  facts  as  they 
actually  occurred  and  on  the  subject  of  early 
Christian  preaching,  and  as  they  contain  no 
sentence  definitely  reported  as  the  saying  of  the 
Lord,  such  an  assertion  rather  complicates  the 
difficulty  than  throws  light  on  it.  May  it  not 
be  that  all  that  concerns  Jesus  as  tlie  Messiah 
belongs  to  tradition,  and  that  the  reserve  of  the 
Saviour,  as  narrated,  was  really  an  absolute 
silence,  much  easier  to  imagine  than  the  equi- 
vocal situation  described  by  the  evangelists  ? 
The  equivocal  situation  does  not  really  exist, 
1  Mark  viii.  28. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  loi 

if  it  is  once  understood  what  the  name  of  Messiah 
signified  to  Jesus,  as  to  His  contemporaries.  There 
seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  Saviour  was  con- 
demned to  death  for  having  put  forward  preten- 
sions to  the  throne  of  Israel,  that  is,  to  the  position 
of  Messiah,  since  His  claim  had  no  political 
meaning.  But  as  far  as  can  be  determined  from 
the  traditional  recollections,  even  this  point  can 
only  be  established  by  His  avowal  first  before  the 
High  Priest,  and  later  before  Pilate.  Jesus  did 
not  say  openly  in  Jerusalem,  any  more  than  in 
Galilee,  that  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
Only  at  Jerusalem  He  made  evident  the  direc- 
tion whither  His  doctrine  tended,  and  the  place 
He  claimed  for  Himself  in  the  kingdom  He 
announced.  Therefore  He  possessed  the  con- 
sciousness of  being  the  Messiah  when  He  left 
Galilee,  and  the  confession  of  Peter,  whose 
historical  truth  there  is  no  reason  in  any  case 
to  suspect,  comes  to  clear  up  the  situation.  The 
conviction  of  the  disciples  was  doubtless  of 
no  long  standing  when  it  was  expressed  by 
Simon ;  but  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  the  thought 
that  Jesus  Himself,  when  He  began  to  preach  the 
gospel,  looked  on  Himself  not  only  as  the  mes- 
senger or  prophet  of  the  kingdom,  but  held  Him- 
self to  be  its  principal  agent  and  predestined  head. 


I02       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

This  is  the  key  to  the  singularity  of  His  attitude. 
As    the   kingdom   is    essentially  a  thing  of   the 
future,  the  office  of  Messiah  is  essentially  eschato- 
logical.    Christ  is  the  head  of  the  society  of  the 
elect.     The  ministry  of  Jesus  was  only  the  pre- 
liminary  to   the   kingdom   of    Heaven   and   the 
fulfilment  of  the  office  of  Messiah.     In  one  sense 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  in  another  sense  He  was 
presently  to  become  the  Messiah.     He  was,  in  so 
far  as  He  was   called   personally  to  govern  the 
New  Jerusalem ;  He  was  not  yet,  since  the  New 
Jerusalem  had  no  existence  and  the  power  of  the 
Messiah    no    place    in    which   to    be   exercised. 
Jesus,  tiien,  had  before  Him  the  vision  of  His  own 
coming.    The  question  of  John  the  Baptist,^  "  Art 
thou  He  that  should  come  ? "  is  thus  easily  under- 
stood, as  is  also  the  reply  of  Jesus,  its  indirect 
character  and  calculated  reserve  being  due  to  no 
modesty  of  the  Saviour,  but  imposed  on  Him  by 
the  actual  conditions  of  the  kingdom.     John  did 
not   say,  "  Art   Thou   the  Christ  ? "   because  the 
kingdom    was   not  realized,  and   Jesus  was  not 
filling  the  place  of  the  Messiah.     He  demands 
rather  if  Jesus  is  not  about  to  become  the  Christ, 
and  Jesus  replies  in  a  way  to  make  him  under- 
stand, that  He  who  prepares  eflectively  the  coming 
1  Matt.  xi.  3. 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  103 

of  the  kingdom  is   He  who   must  come  to  His 
fulfilment  with  the  kingdom.     When  Peter  says, 
"Thou  art  the  Christ,"  he  does  not   mean  that 
the  Saviour  is  already  exercising  His  power  as 
Messiah,  but  that  He  is  the  one  designated  for 
that  position.     It  is   in  this  way  that  Caiaphas 
understands    the     matter,    and     the      discourse 
addressed  to  him  by  Jesus  only  becomes  intel- 
ligible on   this   hypothesis.     The  Saviour  avows 
that  He  is  the  Christ ;  but,  to  support  His  assertion, 
He  adds  immediately,  "  And  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power  and 
coming    in    the   clouds   of    Heaven."^      This   is 
precisely  the  place  of  honour  and   the  glorious 
coming    characteristic    of    the    Messiah.      Jesus 
declares  that  He  is  the  Son  of  Man  who  is  to 

come. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  why  He  did  not  wish 
to  avow  Himself  till  the  day  of  His  death,  and 
the  sense  in  which  He  makes  His  avowal  is 
evident.  It  was  not  for  Him  to  declare  Himself 
earlier,  not  only  because  He  would  not  have  been 
believed,  or  because  He  would  have  been  at  once 
exposed  to  the  vengeance  of  tlie  authorities,  but 
because  He  could  not,  as  His  preaching  was  not 
the  duty  of  the  Messiah,  and  His  coming  as  the 
1  Mark  xiv.  62. 


I04      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

Christ  could  not  be  till  later,  at  the  moment 
decreed  by  Providence.  It  is  easy  to  see,  too,  how 
the  apostolic  Church  should  have  come  to  teach 
that  Jesus  became  Christ  and  Lord  by  His 
resurrection,  that  is,  by  His  entry  into  heavenly 
glory,  and  how  it  should  at  the  same  time  await 
His  coming,  that  is.  His  appearance  as  the  Christ, 
and  not  His  return,  as  His  terrestrial  ministry 
was  not  then  looked  upon  as  the  fulfilment  of 
the  prophecy  of  the  Messiah. 

As  to  the  origin  of  the  conviction  in  the  mind 
of  Jesus  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  it  cannot  be 
deduced  with  certainty  from  the  texts.  The 
oldest  tradition  seems  to  have  explained  or 
symbolized  it  by  a  revelation  made  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Baptism  in  the  Jordan.  The 
tradition  may  have  been  an  after-thought  arising 
from  contemplation  of  the  later  history  of  Jesus, 
although  the  Baptism  was  a  definite  point  of 
departure  in  His  ministry.  In  any  case,  the  dis- 
tinction that  is  drawn  between  the  consciousness 
of  Himself  as  the  Son  and  as  the  Messiah  is 
absolutely  without  foundation.  The  earliest  tradi- 
tion had  no  suspicion  of  it;  nor  would  modern 
criticism  have  dreamed  of  it,  had  there  been  no 
theological  interests  at  stake.  Truly  the  filial 
sentiment  that  fills  the  inner  life  of  Jesus  is  one 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  105 

thing,  and  the  consciousness  reflected  from  His 
assigned  position  is  another.  It  is  not  the 
sentiment  that  makes  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  in 
a  sense  that  belongs  to  Him  alone.  All  men  who 
say  to  God  "  Our  Father,"  are  sons  of  God  by 
the  same  right,  and  Jesus  would  be  only  one  of 
them,  if  it  were  merely  a  question  of  knowing 
the  Divine  Goodness  and  trusting  in  it.  The 
critic  may  conjecture  that  in  Jesus  the  filial 
sentiment  preceded  and  prepared  the  way  for 
the  consciousness  of  being  the  Messiah,  as  His 
soul  was  elevated  by  prayer,  confidence  and  love 
to  the  highest  degree  of  union  with  God,  till  the 
idea  of  His  vocation  as  the  Messiah  came  quite 
naturally  to  crown  the  travail  of  His  Spirit ;  but 
in  so  far  as  the  title  of  Son  of  God  belongs  in 
an  exclusive  sense  to  the  Saviour,  it  is  equivalent 
to  that  of  Messiah,  and  takes  its  meaning  from 
the  rank  of  the  Messiah ;  it  belongs  to  Jesus  not 
because  of  His  inner  disposition  and  His  religious 
experiences,  but  because  of  His  Providential  func- 
tion as  the  sole  maker  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven 
It  must  be  recognized  also  that  the  texts  permit 
no  psychological  analysis  of  the  idea  of  the  Son 
of  God.  Jesus  named  Himself  the  Son  of  God  to 
the  extent  to  wliich  He  avowed  Himself  the 
Messiah.     The  historian  must  come  therefore  to 


io6      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  conclusion  that  He  believed  Himself  the  Son 
of  God,  because  He  believed  Himself  to  be  the 
Messiah.  The  idea  of  the  Divine  Sonship  was 
linked  to  that  of  the  kingdom :  it  had  no  definite 
signification,  as  far  as  Jesus  was  concerned, 
except  in  regard  to  the  kingdom  about  to  be 
established.  Even  for  those  who  believe  in  the 
Gospel,  the  dignity  of  children  of  God  is  not  un- 
related to  the  hope  of  the  kingdom  that  the 
Father  has  destined  for  them.  How  much  more 
when  it  is  a  question  of  the  single  ruler  of  the 
kingdom !  He  is  the  Son,  -par  excellence,  not 
because  He  has  learnt  to  know  the  goodness  of 
the  Father,  and  thus  revealed  it,  but  because  He 
alone  is  the  vicar  of  God  for  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven. 


CHAPTER   II 

To  say  therefore  that  the  Father  only  and  not 
the  Son  belongs  to  the  gospel  of  Jesus/  is  to 
define  with  little  exactness  the  teaching  of  the 
Saviour,  and  the  relation  between  the  conception 
of  Sonship  and  that  of  the  kingdom.  If  the 
gospel  is  only  the  revelation  of  Divine  Goodness, 
it  is  conceivable  that  the  rank  of  the  Revealer 
might  not  be  formally  indicated  in  the  gospel. 
But  as  the  good  news  (as  the  name  gospel 
implies,  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  proves)  is, 
properly  speaking,  the  announcement  of  the 
great  event,  the  Coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  the  Son  of  God  is  the  subject  of  the 
gospel  in  so  far  as  Christ  belongs  to  the  king- 
dom, and  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  the 
gospel  conception  of  the  kingdom  is  entirely 
defined  without  the  Christ. 

The  personality  of  John  the  Baptist  remained 
outside  the  kingdom  he  preached,  because  John 

1  Page  91. 


io8      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

was  only  its  prophet.     The  position  of  Jesus  is 
quite  different.     If  He  speaks  but  little  of  Him- 
self in    His   preaching,   it   is  because    the   only 
direct    object    of    His    doctrine    is     the    moral 
preparation    of    those   who   wish    to   accept   the 
Divine    promise,    and    also    because    He    never 
describes   the    bliss   to   come.       None   the   less, 
He  assigns  to  Himself  an   essential  part  and  a 
unique  place  in  the  arrival  and  establishment  of 
the  kingdom.     What  is  the  sign  of  the  coming  of 
the  Keign  of  God  ?     The  Son  of  Man  appearing 
on  the  clouds.     What  is  the  place  of  Jesus  in 
the    kingdom?      The   first;    and     His    disciples 
dispute  the  honour  of  occupying  the  seats  that 
shall  be  on  His  right  hand  and  His  left.^     There 
is  no  question  of  a  doctrine  to  be  put  forward 
touching   Himself  and   His  office.      Jesus,  who 
announced  no  dogmatic  formula  of  the  kingdom, 
similarly  announced  none  of  Himself.     ISTone  the 
less.  He   preached  the  kingdom,    and,  with   the 
kingdom,  the  Messiah.     Those  who  believed  in 
His  message,  believed  also  in  His  mission,  and 
His  grandeur  was  to  be  made  manifest  to  them 
with  the  promised  kingdom.      It  was  quite  un- 
necessary to   put  forward   beforehand   the   theo- 
retical definition  of  His  dignity.     No  one  reading 
1  Mark  x.  35-40. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  109 

the  gospel  would  doubt  that  Jesus  demands  only 
faith  in  the  goodness  of  God  without  any  further 
anxiety  as  to  the  future,  or  as  to  Himself.  To 
affirm  that  "he  who  holds  Jesus  for  the  Son  of 
God  adds  something  to  the  gospel,"  ^  is  not  to  put 
forward  a  paradox,  but  simply  to  show  an  entire 
misconception  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  teaching. 

It  is  his  own  religion,  not  that  of  the  gospel, 
which  Herr  Harnack  expounds  and  defends, 
when  he  announces  that  "  God  and  the  soul,  the 
soul  and  its  God,  are  the  whole  contents  of  the 
gospel."  ^  The  historical  gospel  has  none  of  this 
mystic  and  individualistic  character.  The  Pro- 
testant theolof]jian  must  have  a  motive  in  forcingr 
this  form  on  it,  or  rather  he  has  his  faith,  mor'd 
powerful  than  any  motive.  The  historian  sees 
no  reason  for  this  violent  interpretation,  nor 
would  he  understand  the  tendency  of  an  argument 
deduced  from  the  despairing  hypothesis  that  in 
the  mind  of  Jesus  His  preaching  was  something 
merely  provisional,  its  meaning  bound  to  be 
changed  after  His  death  and  resurrection,  and  a 
part  of  it  certain  one  day  to  be  negligible  and 
held  of  no  value.  The  hypothesis,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  would  have  no  significance  for  the  historian ; 
but  it  is  not  the  historian  who  requires  it.  It  is 
*  Page  92.  2  Page  90. 


no     THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  theologian  who  may  be  tempted  to  make  use 
of  it,  and  Herr  Harnack  only  escapes  the 
necessity  of  such  a  conjecture  by  an  argument 
still  less  acceptable.  The  Christ  of  the  gospel 
did  not  divide  His  teaching  into  two  parts,  the 
one  comprising  all  that  had  an  absolute  value, 
the  other  all  that  had  only  a  relative  value,  fitted 
to  the  present  time.  Jesus  spoke  in  order  to  say 
what  He  thought  to  be  true,  without  the  least 
reofard  to  our  categories  of  absolute  and  relative. 
But  who  then  has  distinguished  in  the  concep- 
tion of  the  kingdom  the  idea  of  an  inner  king- 
dom which  is  to  have  an  absolute  value,  and  the 
idea  of  a  kingdom  that  is  to  come  whose  value  is 
to  be  held  only  relative  ?  Who  has  found  in  the 
Filial  consciousness  of  Christ  an  element  of 
universal  scope,  namely,  the  knowledge  of  God  the 
Father,  and  a  Jewish  element  of  which  the  sole 
advantage  was  to  define  Jesus  in  history,  namely, 
the  idea  of  the  Messiah  ?  From  a  historical  point 
of  view  it  would  be  a  gratuitous  hypothesis  to 
attribute  to  Jesus  a  foreknowledge  of  the  modi- 
fications His  doctrine  must  endure  in  the  course 
of  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age ;  but  it  is  far 
more  arbitrary  to  limit  this  doctrine,  in  spite  of 
the  gospel,  to  a  single  point  which  is  nowhere 
formally  inculcated,    and    is   not   the   gospel,  as 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  m 

though  this   solitary  point    represented   all    that 
Jesus  thought,  desired  and  did. 

To  say  that  individuals  shall  hear  the  good 
news  of  the  Divine  Mercy  and  Fatherhood,  and 
decide  if  they  will  take  sides  with  God  or  with 
the  world,  is  not  to  give  a  summary  of  the  gospel, 
but  simply  to  change  its  object,  seeing  that  Jesus, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  promised  the  heavenly  king- 
dom to  the  repentant  sinner,  and  left  it  to  His 
hearers  to  receive  or  reject  this  hope.  He  who 
wishes  to  decide  historically  the  thoughts  of  the 
Saviour  has  not  first  to  discover  what  can  suit 
the  mind  of  the  man  of  to-day,  or  what  can 
be  held  to  be  unchanged,  but  must  take  the  texts 
and  interpret  them  according  to  their  natural 
meaning  and  the  guarantees  of  authenticity  they 
present.  Further,  it  misleads  the  reader  to  give 
the  impression  that  the  idea  of  God  the  Father  is 
entirely  identical  for  the  modern  theologian  and 
for  the  compilers  of  the  gospel  and  that  nothing 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  can  have  been  truthfully 
reported,  except  that  which  has  not  changed  its 
meaning.  Seeing  that  from  the  beginning  all 
the  mass  of  Christian  conceptions  have  been 
constantly  changing,  it  is  neither  possible  nor 
is  it  true  that  this  one  idea  of  God  the  Father 
should  have  stood  unshaken  and  should  be   the 


112      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

absolute  kernel  of  the  gospel  teaching.  Every 
development  of  the  idea  of  God  has  exercised  and 
will  exercise  an  influence  on  the  way  of  repre- 
senting His  Fatherhood. 

There  is  nothing  gained  by  employing  tradi- 
tional formulas,  "the  Way  which  leads  to  the 
Father,  the  Judge  established  by  the  Father,"  ^  if 
they  are  emptied  of  their  meaning.  If  it  is 
desired  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Way,  because 
He  brings  the  knowledge  of  God  to  men  and 
helps  them  to  find  the  Father,  it  must  be  said 
that  this  is  not  the  characteristic  feature  of  the 
Saviour's  mission,  which  may  have  been  a 
mission  of  teaching  in  its  outlook  on  the  present, 
but  was  a  different  thing  in  its  outlook  on  the 
future,  and  at  bottom,  in  its  logical  and  Providen- 
tial unity,  was  that  of  the  Introducer  and  Chief 
of  the  kingdom.  Again,  if  the  part  played  by 
Christ  as  Judge  is  understood  in  the  sense  that 
His  preaching  is  the  "  critical  sign ''  of  His  office 
because  it  "gives  happiness  and  judges  at  the 
same  time,"  ^  then  that  which  in  the  gospel  is 
a  concrete  and  objective  hope  is  turned  into 
a  purely  moral  and  abstract  conception.  It 
may  be  well  to  say  that  Jesus  was  "  the  personal 
realization  of  the  gospel,"  ^  but  if  by  that  saying 
1  Page  91.  2  Page  92.  3  Page  91. 


THE  SON   OF  GOD  113 

it  is  understood  that  Jesus  realized  the  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  good  God,  then  is  His  mission 
arbitrarily  defined,  and  there  is  no  exit  from 
the  same  circle  of  systematic  theology.  There 
seems  to  be  a  desire  to  limit,  at  any  cost,  the 
office  of  Christ,  which  is  universal  in  action  as 
well  as  in  thought,  and  is  both  objective  and 
eschatological,  to  the  measure  of  an  individual 
initiative  for  the  communication  of  a  truth  per- 
ceived in  the  soul,  and  producing  all  its  beneficial 
effect  to-day. 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  the  gospel  contains 
no  theoretical  doctrine,  but  it  is  impossible  to 
say  that  its  only  dogma  is  the  truth  of  God  the 
Father.^  Many  other  things  are  taught  in  the 
gospel  as  explicitly  and  as  surely  as  the  Father- 
hood of  God,  and  first  of  all  is  taught  the  reality 
of  the  kingdom  that  is  to  come,  the  certainty  of 
the  gospel  message  concerning  it,  and  the  mission 
of  Him  who  announces  it.  Faith  in  the  goodness 
of  God  is  not  conceived  apart  from  faith  in  His 
promise,  in  the  kingdom,  and  in  Christ,  the  maker 
of  the  kingdom.  The  question  of  Christology 
is  in  no  way  to  be  confounded  with  the  question 
of  faith  in  Christ.  If  Jesus  did  not  teach  the 
Christological  doctrine,  it  does  not  follow  that  His 

1  Page  92. 

I 


114      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

preaching  and  the  faith  it  inspired  had  no  relation 
to  faith  in  Himself.  As  He  did  not  call  Himself 
the  Messiah,  and  only  announced  the  kingdom 
that  was  to  come,  Jesus  asked  no  other  faith  in 
His  mission  than  faith  in  His  message,  the 
promise  of  the  kingdom ;  but  it  was  none  the  less 
certain  that,  at  the  fulfilment  of  the  great  event, 
all  the  elect  would  salute  the  Saviour  with  the 
salutation  of  the  Messiah.  "  Blessed  is  He  that 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  ^ 

The  entire  gospel  is  bound  up  with  a  con- 
ception of  the  world  and  of  history  that  is  no 
longer  ours,  but  it  is  the  whole  gospel  and  not 
only  its  imagined  essence,  which  is  not  "  insepar- 
ably "  ^  bound.  The  proof  of  this  assertion  is  to 
be  sought  in  the  facts,  not  in  abstract  possibility : 
since  the  gospel  has  little  by  little  detached 
itself  from  its  original  form,  it  is  permissible  to 
assert  that  the  form  was  temporary,  and  that  the 
gospel  is  not  inseparably  connected  with  the  con- 
ceptions of  which  the  form  bore  the  trace.  For 
the  rest,  it  cannot  be  said  that  faith  in  God  the 
Father,  any  more  than  hope  in  the  reign  of  justice, 
is  "without  an  epoch,  like  man."^  Man  is  not 
without  an  epoch,  he  is  of  all  epochs,  and  changes 
with  them.  The  gospel  was  not  addressed  to 
»  Cf.  Matt,  xxiii.  39.        2  Page  94.        »  Page  94. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  115 

abstract  man,  without  an  epoch,  unchangeable, 
who  never  existed  save  in  the  mind  of  theorizers, 
but  to  real  men  who  followed  one  another  in  time, 
and  to  them  it  could  not  fail  to  accommodate  itself. 
The  saying  of  the  goodness  of  God,  Who  provides 
for  men  as  He  provides  for  sparrows,  is  no  more 
susceptible  to-day  of  a  literal  interpretation  than 
the  saying  which  promised  to  the  generation  con- 
temporary with  Jesus  the  spectacle  of  the  great 
coming  of  the  kingdom.  Is  it  even  so  easy 
to-day  to  represent  God  pardoning  the  sinner  in 
the  way  of  the  Father  who  welcomed  the  Prodigal 
Son  ?  Have  we  not,  for  all  our  similar  spirit  of 
confidence,  a  somewhat  different  conception  of 
Providence,  Its  mode  of  action  and  Its  goodness  ? 
It  is  a  pitiful  philosopliy  that  attempts  to  fix 
the  absolute  in  any  scrap  of  human  activity, 
intellectual  or  moral.  The  full  life  of  the  gospel 
is  not  in  a  solitary  element  of  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  but  in  the  totality  of  its  manifestation, 
which  starts  from  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ, 
and  its  development  in  the  history  of  Christianity.i 
All  that  has  entered  into  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
has  entered  into  Christian  tradition.  The  truly 
evangelical  part  of  Christianity  to-day,  is  not  thai 
which  has  never  changed,  for,  in  a  sense,  all  has 
changed   and   has  never   ceased    to    change,   but 


ii6       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

that  which  in  spite  of  all  external  changes  pro- 
ceeds from  the  impulse  given  by  Christ,  and  is 
inspired  by  His  Spirit,  serves  the  same  ideal  and 
the  same  hope. 


CHAPTER  III 

If  the  essence  of  the  gospel  and  of  the  conscious- 
ness of  Divine  Sonship  is  set  in  the  knowledge 
of  God  the  Father,  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  and 
the  consciousness  Jesus  had  of  Himself  as  the 
Messiah,  appear  not  only  as  accessories  of  purely 
relative  value,  but  as  sheer  illusions,  a  debt,  as 
it  were,  paid  by  the  Saviour  to  the  prejudices  of 
His  time.  Understood  in  this  way,  the  personal 
work  of  Christ  appears  as  a  fine  transport  of  un- 
reflecting enthusiasm,  prevented  from  falling  into 
fanaticism  by  an  element  of  pure  religion,  but  not 
losing  thereby  any  of  its  chimerical  character. 

It  is  vain  for  Herr  Harnack  to  begin  by  setting 
Jesus  above  Socrates.^  If  the  hope  that  centred 
in  the  Messiah  was  inconsistent  and  false,  then  the 
philosopher,  dying  in  the  cause  of  Eeason,  was  wiser 
than  Christ,  dying  in  the  cause  of  Faith.  For  he 
simply  accepted  his  destiny  without  promising 
himself  in  the  future  a  compensation  which  he 

1  Pase  1. 


ii8      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

would  have  failed  to  realize.     It  is  in  this  way  that 
theological  rationalism,  instead  of  explaining  the 
gospel,  comes  to  mutilate  it,  and  under  the  pre- 
text of  safeguarding  the  grandeur  of  Jesus,  lowers 
Him  beneath,  not  only  Socrates,  but  every  man 
endowed  with  common  sense.     The   gospel   and 
the   Christ  are,  as   it   were,  separated   into   two 
elements  :  a  moral  sentiment  that  is  gladly  hailed 
as  admirable,  and  a  dream  that  one  dare  not  call 
ridiculous.    With  a  more  penetrating  criticism  and 
a  wider  philosophy,  these  two  elements  would  be 
found  in  no  way  heterogeneous  ;  it  would  be  found 
that,  if  tradition  has  never  separated  them,  it  is 
because  they  are  inseparable,  and  that  the  religion 
of  the  heart  and  the  hope  of  the  kingdom  are 
not  respectively  the  reality  and  the   fantasy  of 
Christianity,  but  together  make  up  the  religion  of 
Jesus. 

According  to  the  logic  of  Faith,  if  the  idea  of 
the  kingdom  is  real,  the  gospel  is  Divine,  and  God 
Himself  is  revealed  in  Jesus.  According  to  the 
logic  of  Eeason,  if  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  is 
inconsistent  with  fact,  the  gospel  as  a  Divine  reve- 
lation falls  to  the  ground,  Jesus  is  no  more  than  a 
pious  man,  who  could  not  separate  His  piety  from 
His  dreams,  and  died  the  victim  of  error  rather 
than  the  servant  of  the  truth  that  was  in  Him. 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  119 

For  Jesus  suffered  on  the  cross  because  He  avowed 
Himself,  and  believed  Himself  to  be,  the  Messiah  ; 
not  because  He  knew  the  goodness  of  the  Heavenly- 
Father,  nor  because  He  wished  to  demonstrate  it 
by  His  death.     He  died  because  such  was  the  will 
of  the  Father,  and  because  His  death  seemed  to 
Him   the   providential  condition  of  the   definite 
fulfilment  of  the  kingdom  He  had  preached.     He 
applied  to  Himself  the  lesson  He   gave   to    His 
disciples — "  He  that  saveth  his  life  in  this  world 
shall  lose  it  for  eternity ;  whosoever  shall  lose  his 
life  for  My  sake  and  the  Gospel,  the  same  shall 
save  it  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  ^     On  the  eve 
of  the  Passion,  He  presented  to  His  disciples  the 
bread  and  the  wine  of  the  Eucharist,  as  a  symbol 
of  the  death  He  was  about  to  endure,  and  at  the 
same  time  as  a  pledge  of  the  Communion  which 
should  reunite  His  disciples  and  Himself  in  the 
kingdom  that  was  to  be.     He  therefore  died  as 
the  Messiah,  filled  with  the  idea  of  thi^  kingdom, 
whose    fulfilment    He    thought   to   ensure,    the 
kingdom  where  He  trusted  to  live  again  in  the 
full  glory  of  the  Messiah.      Such  is  the  Christ 
of  history,  and  the  true  measure  of  His  greatness 
is  to  be  sought  in  nothing  but  in  what  He  believed 
and  desired  to  be. 

1  Cf.  Mark  viii.  35. 


I20       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

Jesus,  on  the  earth,  was  the  great  representative 
of  faith.  Now,  the  religious  faith  of  humanity 
always  has  been  and  always  will  be  supported  by 
symbols  more  or  less  imperfect:  its  aspirations, 
which  have  infinity  as  their  object,  can  only 
become  definite  in  human  thought  in  a  finite  form. 
The  concrete  symbol,  the  living  image,  not  the 
pure  idea,  is  the  normal  expression  of  faith,  and 
the  condition  of  its  moral  efficacy  in  man  and  in 
the  world.  The  choice  and  the  quality  of  the 
symbols  are  necessarily  related  to  the  stage  of 
evolution  of  faith  and  of  religion.  The  conceptions 
of  the  kingdom  and  of  the  Messiah  are  not  merely 
the  features  that  made  it  possible  for  Christianity 
to  come  forward  beside  Judaism,  they  are  the  neces- 
f-ary  form  in  which  Christianity  had  to  be  born  in 
Judaism  before  spreading  out  into  the  world. 

Nothing  could  make  Jesus  other  than  a  Jew. 
He  was  only  man  under  condition  of  belonging  to 
one  branch  of  humanity.  In  that  in  which  he 
was  born,  the  branch  that  may  well  be  said  to 
have  carried  in  it  the  religious  future  of  the 
world,  this  future  was  known  in  quite  a  precise 
manner,  by  the  hope  of  the  reign  of  God,  by  the 
symbol  of  the  Messiah.  He  who  was  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world  could  only  enter  on  his  office 
by   assuming   the   position   of    Messiah,  and  by 


^   ^    O*-   THE 

ThE  SON   OF  GOD  121 

presenting  Himself  as  the  founder  of  the  kingdom 
come  to  accomplish  the  hope  of  Israel.  The 
Gospel,  appearing  in  Judsea  and  unable  to  appear 
elsewhere,  was  bound  to  be  conditioned  by 
Judaism.  Its  Jewish  exterior  is  the  human  body, 
whose  Divine  Soul  is  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  But 
take  away  the  body,  and  tlie  soul  will  vanish  in 
the  air  like  the  lightest  breath.  Without  the  idea 
of  the  Messiah,  the  gospel  would  have  been  but  a 
metaphysical  possibility,  an  invisible,  intangible 
essence,  even  unintelligible,  for  want  of  a  definition 
appropriate  to  the  means  of  knowledge,  not  a 
living  and  conquering  reality.  The  gospel  will 
always  need  a  body  to  be  human.  Having  become 
the  hope  of  Christian  people,  it  has  corrected  in 
tlie  interpretation  certain  parts  of  its  Israelitish 
symbolism.  None  the  less,  it  remains  the  shadowy 
representation  of  the  great  mystery,  God  and  the 
providential  destiny  of  man  and  of  humanity, 
because  it  is  a  representation  always  striving  after 
perfection,  inadequate  and  insufficient. 

This  is  the  mystery  that  Jesus  revealed,  as  far 
as  it  could  be  revealed,  and  under  the  conditions 
which  made  revelation  possible.  It  may  be  said 
that  Christ  lived  it  as  much  as  He  made  it 
manifest.  If  He  had  only  had  in  view  the 
propagation  of  a  doctrine,  the  organization  of  au 


122       THE    GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

earthly  society,  or  even  the  foundation  of  a  par- 
ticular religion,  Christ  must  have  been  judged  not 
only  less  wise  than  Socrates,  but  much  less  able 
than  Mahomet.  He  sought  no  such  object,  and 
it  was  for  no  deceiving  dream  that  he  turned  aside 
from  it.  His  dream  was  His  project,  the  realiza- 
tion of  perfect  happiness  in  perfect  justice,  of  im- 
mortality in  holiness.  This  realization  was  already 
complete  in  Him,  by  His  union  with  God,  His 
faith  in  the  Heavenly  Father,  the  inner  certainty 
of  the  eternal  future  guaranteed  to  humanity  in 
His  person  and  by  His  agency.  The  historian,  as 
such,  cannot  appreciate  the  objective  value  of  this 
persuasion :  the  Christian  will  not  doubt  it,  and, 
beyond  any  question,  no  one  is  Christian  who  does 
not  admit  it. 

It  may  appear  to  some  minds,  in  which  the 
habits  of  abstraction  and  of  reasoning  have  over- 
grown the  sense  of  vital  things,  that  the  hope  of 
the  kingdom  was  too  common,  too  imaginative,  too 
little  in  accord  with  actual  occurrence,  to  be 
worthy  of  the  Saviour.  Have  we  not  already 
seen  learned  Catholics  insinuate,  if  not  openly 
profess,  that  the  earliest  Christians  may  have  lent 
their  Divine  Master  their  own  apocalyptic  illusion, 
as  though  the  Parousia,  the  advent  of  Christ  in 
glory,  were   not  the  essential   element  of  belief 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  123 

in  the  Messiah,  and  as  if  the  appearance  as 
Messiah  were  not  the  only  historical  definition  of 
the  position  of  Jesus  ?  It  would  be  impossible  to 
show  a  more  paltry  appreciation  of  a  fact  that 
presents  itself  to  the  historian  as  the  greatest 
manifestation  of  faith  ever  displayed  on  the  earth. 
Jesus  died  confident  in  the  future  of  His  work 
and  in  His  own  approaching  triumpli.  His  con- 
fidence came,  not  from  an  effort  to  conceal  His 
present  failure,  or  to  overcome  the  terrors  of 
death,  but  from  the  same  feeling  that  rendered 
Him  unable  to  suppose  that  the  Divine  life  in 
Him  could  vanish  with  His  last  breath,  or  that 
the  kingdom  could  fall  with  Him  or  He  Himself 
be  lost  to  the  kingdom.  IN'o  !  the  Messiah  would 
live  and  the  kingdom  would  come.  It  is  because 
of  preconceptions  foreign  to  healthy  philosophy, 
and  to  knowledge  of  men  and  of  history,  that  men 
search  in  the  gospel  and  in  the  thoughts  of  Christ 
for  the  abstract  definition  they  judge  the  best 
to  characterize  Himself  or  His  mission,  or  that 
they  are  scandalized  not  to  find  in  His  discourses 
the  exact  prevision  of  the  future  reserved  for 
Christianity.  Jesus  has  not  considered  or  repre- 
sented its  future  under  the  aspects  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  humanity,  only  accompany  a 
knowledge  of  the  past.     As  far  as  the  critic  can 


124      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

judge  from  the  clearest  and  most  authenticated 
documents  of  gospel  history,  Christ  contem- 
plated and  announced  the  future  in  terms  of 
the  only  kinds  of  belief  suitable  for  such  a 
purpose ;  He  saw  it  and  described  it  under  the 
traditional  symbol  of  Israelitish  hope  that  He 
had  taken  possession  of;  it  appeared  to  Him  like 
a  ray  of  light,  as  a  single  infinitely  comprehensive 
conception,  the  complete  and  final  advent  of  the 
reign  of  God.  From  a  really  logical  point  of  view, 
no  symbol  can  be  conceived,  better  adapted  to  the 
conditions  of  His  ministry  and  the  success  of  His 
message.  The  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah was  the  sole  living  form,  in  which  he  could 
conceive,  could  represent  to  other?,  and  make 
sure  to  Himself,  the  future  of  faithful  humanity, 
taking  root  in  the  present. 

In  the  gospel,  then,  the  hope  of  the  kingdom 
was  a  simple  idea,  or  rather,  bearing  in  mind  the 
faith  that  it  inspired,  a  simple  reality.  To  the 
Christian  historian  it  now  appears  as  the  concrete, 
rudimentary,  indistinct  symbol  of  subsequent 
events ;  namely,  faith  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  in  His  invisible  and  constant  presimce 
among  His  own  people,  in  His  Eternal  Glory ; 
the  indefinite  progress  of  the  Gospel  in  the 
world;    the     regeneration    of    human    kind    by 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  125 

Christianity,  and  the  anticipation  of  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven  in  the  Church.     From   the  point  of 
view  of  faith,  it  was  the  certain  presentiment  of 
what  is  seen  to-day  and  also  of  what  is  not  seen, 
since  the  aspect  presented  by  the  reign  of  God, 
contemplated    as    eternal,    the    way    in    which, 
behind  the  curtain  of  this   world,    the  accounts 
of  the  Divine  justice  and  the  Divine  goodness  are 
regulated,  escape  our  experience.     Let  it  never  be 
said  that  Jesus  only  expected  the  reward  of  His 
hope,  and  that  its  fulness  was  never  awarded  to 
Him!      For  the  faith.  He  is  King  and  God  to 
all   eternity.      As   far   as  we  can  penetrate   the 
economy  of  things  in  this  world,  Jesus  lives  in 
humanity  to  an  extent  and  in  a  way  never  ex- 
perienced  by  any  other  human  being.     He,  the 
Divine  Liberator,  has  proceeded  to  God  by  the 
path    of   sorrow   and    death,  sure    that   He   was 
not   deceived,    whatever   were    the    conditions   it 
pleased  the  Father  to  assign  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  work  for  wliich  His  earthly  life  was 
sacrificed.     K  His  hope  has  only  been  actually 
realized  before  the  eyes  of  faith,  the  philosopliical 
historian  will  not  hesitate  to  find  even   that  an 
astonishingly  true  fulfilment,  when  he  notes  the 
results  the  hope  has  achieved  and  its  inexhaust- 
ible fruitfulness. 


CHAPTEE   IV 

The  place  occupied  in  the  teaching  of  Saint  Paul 
by  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  is  well 
known  :  they  constitute  for  the  apostle  a  veri- 
table Gospel  of  Salvation,  because  they  have 
brought  the  kingdom  of  God,  by  obtaining  for 
Jesus  the  glory  of  the  Messiah,  and  through  Jesus 
for  them  that  believe,  the  spirit  of  God  in  the 
Communion  with  the  glorified  Christ.  Herr 
Harnack  writes :  ^  "  We  may  take  it  as  certain 
that  the  Apostle  Paul  was  not  the  first  to  seize 
upon  the  ideas  of  the  death  and  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  but  that  he  ranked  himself  with 
the  early  community  in  attaching  supreme  value 
to  both."  There  may  be  something  equivocal  in 
this  statement.  The  early  community  knew  full 
well  that  Christ  had  died  on  the  cross,  and  they 
believed,  before  Paul,  that  he  had  risen  from  the 
dead ;  but  this  death  and  resurrection  might  well 
give  rise  to  different  conceptions  that  must  not 

»  Page  97. 


THE   SON   OF  GOD  ^V 

be    attributed   without   distinction    to   the   early 
believers  or  to  Jesus  Himself  and  to  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles.     The  passage  from  the  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians/  "  For  I  delivered  unto  you  that 
which   I   also   received,   how   that    Christ    died 
for  our  sins  2  ...  and  that  He   rose  again  the 
third  day  "—by  no  means  makes  it  certain  that 
the  idea  of  the  Atonement  by  death  existed  from 
the    beginning   with    the    distinctness    that   the 
teaching  of  Paul  conferred  on  it,  or  that  it  con- 
tributed to  lay  the  foundations  of  Christology  to 
the  same  extent  as  the  idea  of  the  resurrection. 

As  far  as  can  be  determined  from  witnesses  who 
have  all  come  more  or  less  under  the  influence 
of  the  Pauline  theology,  it  was  the  resurrection 
alone  that  made  Jesus  the  Christ  and  established 
Him  on  His  throne  of  glory ;  the  death  was  only 
the  Providential  condition  of  the  resurrection, 
willed  by  God  and  accepted  by  Jesus.  Too  much 
insistence  must  not  be  laid  on  the  fact  that  the 
death  of  Christ  put  an  end  to  blood  sacrifices,^  for 
the  idea  of  an  atoning  death  did  not  contribute 
alone  or   principally  to   this   result.     The   Jews 

1  1  Cor.  XV.  3,  4. 

2  St.  Paul  says  "according  to  the  Scriptures,"  a  foct 
showing  that  the  historical  character  of  the  tradition  he 
alludes  to  must  not  be  exaggerated. 

3  Page  99. 


128      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

only  offered  up  sacrifices  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
disciples  of  the  gospel  would  not  have  dreamed 
of  sacrificing  elsewhere ;  their  separation  from  the 
Jews  and  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  have 
had  a  sequel  for  them  that  has  also  affected  the 
Israelites.  It  may  be  thought  that  the  moral 
idea  underlying  sacrifice  ought  finally  to  eliminate 
the  reality;  but  the  logic  of  facts  brought  about 
the  consummation  rather  than  the  logic  of  ideas, 
and  it  is  not  strictly  true  to  say  that  the  moral 
idea  replaced  the  reality.  Also  it  is  playing  a 
little  on  the  double  sense  of  the  word  "  sacrifice  " 
to  speak  in  this  connection  of  the  law  which 
demands  that  progress  shall  be  bought  for 
humanity  by  the  suffering  and  often  by  the  death 
of  those  who  contribute  to  advancement  most 
effectively.^  Between  the  man  who  dies,  the  victim 
of  his  destiny,  or  rather  of  the  resistance  opposed 
by  the  force  of  inertia  to  the  force  of  progress, 
and  the  lamb,  the  goat,  or  even  the  human  being 
immolated  to  a  Divinity  to  win  His  favour,  there 
is  only  the  analogy  that  explains  the  use  of  the 
same  word,  but  should  not  be  able  to  deceive  the 
historian. 

As  for  the  idea,  that  as  evil  and    sin  require 
punishment,  there  is  in  the  suffering  of  the  just 
1  Page  100. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  129 

a  purifying  expiation,  it  comes  as  an  intermediary 
between  the  material  notion  of  sacrifice  and  the 
purely  spiritual  conception,  related  to  the  first 
by  the  idea  of  expiatory  satisfaction  and  to  the 
second  by  the  moral  element  it  contains ;  it  is  a 
symbolic  conception  which  should  not  be  forcibly 
translated  into  the  expression  of  an  absolute 
indestructible  truth,  vivid  in  the  conscience  of 
mankind  in  this  particular  form.  This  mixed 
conception  is  to  be  found  in  Isaiah ;  there  is  no 
other  proof  that  it  belongs  to  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  and  to  the  faith  of  the  first  community. 
The  passage  in  Mark,^  where  it  is  said  that  Christ 
came  "  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many,"  was 
in  all  probability  influenced  by  the  theology  of 
Paul,  and  as  much  may  be  said  of  the  narratives 
of  the  Last  Supper. 

According  to  the  early  text  of  St.  Luke,^  Jesus 
presents  the  cup  and  the  bread  to  His  disciples, 
in  view  of  His  imminent  death,  and  His  future 
reunion  with  His  own  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
but  without  bringing  out  the  expiatory  cha- 
racter   and   redeeming   intention   of    His    death. 

1  Mark  x.  45. 

2  Luke  xxii.  18,  19,  to  the  words  "This  is  my  body." 
The  rest  of  19  and  20  luive  been  taken  from  1  Cor.  (xi. 
24,  25),  and  seem  to  be  an  addition  to  the  narrative. 

E 


I30      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

The  narrative  of  Mark  seems  founded  on  a 
statement  very  like  that  of  Luke,  and  all  that 
is  said  of  the  "  blood  of  the  new  testament " 
must  have  been  added  after  the  teaching  of 
Paul ;  "  And  He  took  the  cup,  and  when  He 
had  given  thanks,  He  gave  it  to  them :  and 
they  all  drank  of  it.  And  He  said  unto  them, 
This  is  My  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is 
shed  for  many.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will 
drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that 
day  that  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God."  •^ 
The  time  to  say  "  This  is  my  blood,"  was  not  after 
the  disciples  had  drunk,  as  Matthew  saw,  for  he 
associates  these  words  with  the  presentation  of 
the  cup.^  But  the  compiler  of  the  second  Gospel 
did  not  wish  to  upset  the  arrangement  of  the  early 
narrative,  and  contented  himself  with  associating 
with  the  words  said  after  the  passing  of  the  cup 
those  that,  according  to  St.  Paul,^  were  s^^oken 
before. 

The  earliest  believers  corrected  the  brutal  fact  of 
the  death  by  the  glory  of  the  resurrection.  Paul 
discovered  in  the  death  a  meaning  and  an  efficacy 
able  to  act  independently  of  the  resurrection, 
thouoh  co-ordinated  with  it.     But  if  Jesus  was 


•^O"" 


1  Mark  xiv.  23-25.  2  Matt.  xxvi.  28,  29. 

3  1  Cor.  xi.  25. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  131 

proclaimed  Christ  and  Lord  by  the  first  disciples, 
it  was  not  because  of  His  death,  but  because  of 
His  resurrection,  which  displayed  Him  in  the 
glory  of  the  Messiah. 

It  must  be  granted  to  Herr  Harnack  ^  that  the 
"message  of  Easter"  and  "the  faith  of  Easter" 
are  distinct  things,  althougli  it  is  not  easy  to 
follow  him  in  finding  the  distinction  in  the 
Gospels.  The  message  of  Easter  (that  is  to  say, 
the  discovery  of  the  empty  tomb  and  the  appear- 
ances of  Jesus  to  His  disciples,  so  far  as  these 
facts  are  taken  for  physical  proofs  of  the  resurrec- 
tion) is  not  an  irrefutable  argument  from  which 
the  historian  can  conclude  with  entire  certainty 
that  the  Saviour  rose  in  the  body  from  the  dead. 
The  case  is  not  one  that  can  supply  complete 
proof  Christ  risen  from  the  dead  does  not 
belong  to  the  order  of  the  present  life,  which  is 
that  of  sensible  experience,  and  consequently  the 
resurrection  is  not  a  fact  that  can  have  been 
directly  and  formally  established.  The  cure  of 
the  sick  can  be  verified ;  even  the  return  of  a  dead 
man  to  natural  life  would  be  susceptible  of  proof 
were  it  to  occur ;  but  the  entry  of  a  dead  man 
into  immortal  life  escapes  our  powers  of  observa- 
tion.      The    empty   tomb    is    only    an    indirect 

1  Pai-e  101. 


132       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

argument  and  not  decisive,  since  the  only  estab- 
lished fact,  the  disappearance  of  the  body,  can  be 
explained  in  other  ways  than  by  the  resurrection. 
The  appearances  are  a  direct  argument,  but  one 
uncertain  in  its  significance.  Before  any  exami- 
nation of  the  narratives,  it  is  a  natural  thought 
that  sensory  impressions  are  not  an  adequate 
testimony  to  a  purely  supernatural  reality.  Jesus 
after  His  resurrection  appeared  and  disappeared  in 
the  manner  of  a  spirit ;  during  the  time  of  His 
appearance.  He  was  visible,  palpable,  and  could 
be  regarded  as  a  man  in  a  normal  state.  Can  this 
mixture  of  qualities  inspire  entire  confidence  in 
the  historian  who  approaches  the  question  without 
previous  faith  ?  Obviously  not.  The  historian 
will  reserve  his  conviction,  because  the  objective 
reality  of  the  appearances  is  not  defined  for  him 
with  sufficient  precision.  The  critical  examina- 
tion of  the  narratives  will  confirm  him  in  his 
doubt,  because  it  will  be  impossible  for  him  to 
reconstitute  with  sufficient  certainty,  according  to 
the  Gospels  and  Saint  Paul,  the  series  of  appari- 
tions, in  sequence,  with  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  occurred.  The  fact  of  some  appear- 
ances will  seem  to  him  incontestable,  but  he  will 
be  unable  to  decide  their  nature  and  extent  with 
precision.     Looked  at  independently  of  the  belief 


THE  SON   OF  GOD  133 

of  the  apostles,  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament 
only  supplies  a  limited  probability,  hardly  pro- 
portionate to  the  extraordinary  importance  of  the 
fact  attested.  But  is  it  not  inevitable  that  every 
natural  proof  of  a  supernatural  occurrence  should 
be  incomplete  and  defective  ? 

The  faith  of  the  apostles  is  not  the  message  of 
Easter :  it  comes  direct  from  the  ever-livinsr 
Christ,  and  hails  Him  as  such.  Compared  with 
this  faith,  the  imaginative  representation  or  theo- 
retical conception  of  the  resurrection,  and  the 
character  of  the  appearances,  are  secondary 
matters.  However,  the  faith  is  not  independent 
of  the  message.  Whatever  criticism  may  think  of 
the  difficulties  and  divergences  that  the  narratives 
present  concerning  the  Saviour's  resurrection,  it  is 
beyond  question  that  tlie  faith  of  the  apostles  was 
stimulated  by  the  apparitions  that  followed  the 
death  of  Jesus,  and  that  the  apostles,  even  St. 
Paul,  had  no  conception  of  an  immortality  dis- 
tinct from  bodily  resurrection.  The  message  of 
Easter  and  the  faith  of  Easter  have  for  them  the 
same  object  and  the  same  significance.  "  The 
history  of  Thomas  is  related  solely  to  show  that 
he  ought  to  have  had  the  faith  of  Easter,  even 
without  the  message  ;  "  ^  but  in  this  narrative  the 

*  hoc.  cit. 


134      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

object  of  the  message  constitutes  precisely  the 
faith ;  he  ought  to  have  believed  that  Christ  was 
risen,  in  the  sense  of  the  message,  witliout  having 
seen  the  apparition.  The  same  thing  applies  to 
the  disciples  at  Emmaus  ;  "  they  were  blamed  in 
that  faith  in  the  resurrection  was  wanting, 
although  they  had  not  yet  received  the  message 
of  Easter ; "  ^  but  it  is  simply  left  to  be  understood, 
that  if  they  had  been  apprehensive,  the  Scriptures 
would  have  taught  them  what  the  message 
announced,  namely,  that  the  Christ  must  rise 
from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  after  His  death. 

The  distinction  between  the  message  and  the 
faith  can  then  be  founded  on  fact,  without  beiuij 
founded  on  the  gospel.  A  fundamental  element 
in  the  faith,  namely,  the  belief  in  the  living 
Christ,  which  is  the  substance  of  the  faith,  can  be 
distinguished  from  its  form,  which  resembles  the 
object  of  the  message.  There  is  no  space 
here  to  discuss  whether  or  no  the  form  is  essential 
to  the  preservation  of  the  essence.  Herr  Har- 
nack  desires  to  keep  the  essence  and  not  the 
form,  the  faith  without  its  proof,  which  he  judges 
obsolete.  Perhaps  he  is  mistaken  in  taking 
for  a  mere  proof  that  which  in  the  apostolic 
writings  is  above  all  an  expression  of  faith. 
*  hoc.  cit. 


THE   SON  OF  GOD  135 

Understood  in  this  way  the  Easter  message 
remains  the  main  testimony  of  the  faith,  and  the 
distinction  between  the  faith  and  the  message 
has  only  a  theoretical  significance  of  no  trreat 
importance  in  religion.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
oppose  the  faith,  as  an  absolute  thing,  to  the 
message  and  call  the  message  relative :  the  faith 
has  lived,  and  still  lives,  in  the  message,  which  is 
even  its  reality,  in  so  far  as  it  is  an  attempt  to 
communicate  the  faith. 

There  is  some  exaggeration  in  dismissing  Plato, 
the  religion  of  the  Persians,  and  the  beliefs  of 
Judaism  after  the  exile,  as  though  they  had  in  no 
way  aided  in  creating  the  certainty  of  eternal  life, 
and  as  though  this  certainty  came  once  and  for 
all  from  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ.^  The 
religious  evolution  of  Judaism,  in  the  time  that 
immediately  preceded  the  Christian  era,  con- 
tributed not  a  little  to  prepare  the  soil  in  which 
such  a  belief  could  take  root.  Jesus  Himself 
found  among  the  Jews  a  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  and  He  spoke  conformably  to  this 
belief.  The  idea  of  His  personal  resurrection  pre- 
supposes the  acceptance  of  the  idea  of  a  general 
resurrection.  It  cannot  be  questioned  that  faith 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  gave  a  decisive 
1  Pa-e  102. 


136      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

impulse  to  later  belief;  but  it  is  not  for  the 
historian  to  contest  the  relation  of  this  faith  to 
the  belief  that  preceded  it. 

Nor  can  it  be  truly  said  that  to-day  faith 
in  the  eternally  living  Christ  is  the  sole  sup- 
port of  belief  in  immortality.  It  is  one  thing 
to  say  that  humanity  never  gained  this  faith  from 
philosophic  speculations,  and  quite  another  to  say 
that  it  derives  it  solely  from  the  life  and  death  of 
Christ,  for  ever  one  with  God.  The  impression 
of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  would  be  nothing 
on  a  humanity  that  had  not  in  it  the  desire,  more 
or  less  conscious,  of  all  that  Jesus  brings  to  it, 
and  did  not  already  await  what  He  promises.  It 
is  too  easy  to  assert  that  the  disciples,  having 
conversed  with  the  Saviour,  knew  well  how 
intense  a  life  He  inspired,  and  therefore  could  be 
but  temporarily  shaken  by  His  death.  Even 
admitting  this  hypothesis,  men  who  had  not  been 
familiarized  with  the  idea  of  eternal  life,  as  it 
was  presented  in  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  would  have  been  ill  prepared  to  believe 
that  their  Master  had  risen  from  the  dead.  Add 
that  the  moral  vitality  that  radiated  from  Jesus 
and  immortality  are  two  quite  distinct  forms  of 
life,  however  intertwined,  and  that  the  fishermen 
of  Galilee   would   have   had   some   difficulty  in 


THE  SON   OF  GOD  137 

deducing  the  one  from  the  other,  had  they  come 
to  the  question  quite  unaided. 

In  this  absolute  thesis  of  Herr  Harnack  as  in 
his  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  his 
tendency  is  evident,  to  concentrate  religion  into  a 
single  point  where  the  realization  of  the  perfect  is 
to  be  seen :  this  solitary  point  in  this  case  would 
be  the  eternal  life  acquired  now  by  union  with 
the  good  God.  Jesus  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
sole  herald  of  this  unique  revelation,  which 
remains  unchangeable  in  this  pure  form,  with 
nothing  before  it  to  prepare  the  way,  and  itself 
unchanged  through  the  centuries  that  follow.  In 
place  of  the  supernatural,  which  he  abandons 
instead  of  explaining  the  idea  at  the  back  of  it, 
the  learned  theologian  introduces  something 
equally  inconsistent,  a  kind  of  revelation,  human 
and  absolute,  sudden  and  unchangeable,  which  is 
held  to  have  been  produced  in  the  consciousness 
of  Jesus,  but  is  unknown  to  the  gospel. 

It  is  not  in  this  way  that  Christianity  made 
its  entry  into  the  world.  If  it  was  not  (and  it 
was  far  from  being)  the  chance  product  of  a  com- 
bination of  heterogeneous  beliefs,  from  Chaldea, 
Egypt,  India,  Persia,  and  Greece :  if  it  was  born 
of  the  incomparable  word  and  action  of  Jesus,  it 
is  none  the  less  true  that  Jesus  gathered  up  and 


138       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

vivified  the  best  of  the  religious  wealth  amassed 
by  Israel  before  Him,  and  that  He  transmitted 
this  wealth  not  as  a  simple  deposit  that  the  faith- 
ful of  all  time  had  but  to  guard,  but  as  a  living 
faith  in  the  form  of  a  collection  of  beliefs,  which 
had  to  live  and  grow  after  Him,  even  as  they 
had  grown  and  lived  before,  by  the  preponderating 
influence  of  the  spirit  that  animated  them.  By 
isolating  Him  in  history,  Herr  Harnack  makes 
his  Christ  no  greater,  but  only  less  intelligible 
and  less  real.^ 

1  Cf.  E.  Caird,  art.  cit,  p.  6. 


SECTION  IV 
THE   CHURCH 

INTRODUCTION 

Once  the  essence  of  Christianity  has  been  re- 
stricted to  faith  in  God  the  Father,  almost  every- 
thing that  constitutes  or  has  constituted  historical 
Christianity  becomes  necessarily  secondary,  or 
adventitious,  contrary,  and  foreign  to  this  pure 
essence.  The  whole  development  of  the  Church, 
hierarchic,  dogmatic,  and  ritual,  is  thus  placed 
outside  true  Christianity  and  presented  as  a  pro- 
gressive abasement  of  religion.  It  is  the  Protes- 
tant and  anticatholic  idea  pushed  to  its  extreme 
limit.  But  if  the  foundation  of  this  system  of 
belief,  the  determination  of  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity, has  been  fixed  in  despite  of  history,  it  is 
possible  that  the  edifice  it  supports  is  no  more 
solid  than  the  foundation,  and  that  the  considera- 
tion of  Christian  development  justifies  the  same 
criticism  as  the  consideration  of  the  Gospel.     Yov 


I40      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

the  historian,  everything  by  which  the  gospel 
continues  to  live  is  Christian,  and  the  criterion 
for  judging  of  this  quality  cannot  be  an  abstract 
essence,  defined  to  suit  the  principles  of  a  par- 
ticular theology  rather  than  to  harmonize  with 
the  facta. 


CHAPTER  I 

The  society  imagined  by  Christ,  says  Herr 
Harnack,  was  something  invisible  and  heavenly, 
because  it  concerned  the  inner  life  of  man. 
Evangelical  Christianity  was  as  a  soul  without  a 
body.^  When  He  had  broken  with  Judaism,  He 
was  forced  to  create  forms  of  life  and  a  social 
organization  first  of  all :  hence  preoccupation  with 
external  things  occupies  a  place  beside  preoccupa- 
tion with  the  only  essential :  and  once  the  purely 
inner  sphere  is  left,  there  is  no  progress  that  has 
not  reverses,  and  does  not  bring  inconveniences.^ 

Towards  the  year  200  A.D.  Christianity  had 
definitely  evolved  towards  Catholicism.  A  great 
ecclesiastical  society  had  been  established,  reject- 
ing many  sects  that  also  called  themselves  Chris- 
tian: it  was  made  up  of  different  Churches  scattered 
through  the  Roman  Empire,  which,  thougli  mutu- 
ally independent,  maintained  constant  and  regular 

1  Page  113.  a  Page  114. 


142      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

relations,  were  organized  in  the  same  way,  and 
professed  a  common  doctrine,  wherein  rules  of 
discipline  were  distinguished  from  rules  of  faith. 
Each  Church  regarded  itself  as  the  instrument 
of  a  worship  which  had  its  solemn  rites,  and 
whose  principal  acts  could  only  be  accomplished 
by  priests.  We  are  told  that  this  means  that 
formalism  is  introduced  with  fatal  result  into 
religions  tliat  endure,  as  soon  as  the  fervour  of 
euthusiasm  that  gave  them  birth  is  passed  :  it  is 
in  this  way  that  "  The  struggle  against  Gnosticism 
compelled  the  Church  to  formulate  its  doctrine, 
its  worship,  and  its  discipline  in  fixed  forms  and 
with  fixed  laws,  and  to  exclude  whomsoever  did 
not  submit."  ^  Alas  for  liberty !  The  primitive 
life  had  vanished,  "  mediocrity  laid  the  foundation 
of  authority."  ^  Nevertheless  it  can  be  seen  by 
Acts  of  the  martyrs,  the  writings  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  of  Tertullian,  that  the  Church 
"  had  not  stifled  the  gospel."  ^ 

The  Church,  Eastern  as  well  as  Western, 
organized  itself  as  a  juridical  institution  and 
as  a  political  administration.  In  the  East, 
the  hierarchic  development  only  ended  with  the 
establishment  of  national  Churches,  largely  de- 
pendent on  the  civil  power.  Matters  went  very 
1  Page  119.  2  Page  130.  3  Page  135. 


THE   CHURCH  143 

differently  in  tlie  West,  where  the  Empire  had 
crumbled  away  by  the  fifth  century.  Our  critic 
declares,  in  a  description  wherein  he  seems  a  little 
carried  away  by  his  own  eloquence,  that  "  in  an 
underhand  way  tlie  Eoman  Church  substituted 
itself  for  the  Eoman  Empire,  which  in  reality  sur- 
vived in  her ;  the  Eoman  Empire  did  not  perish, 
it  was  only  transformed.  .  .  .  The  Eoman  Church 
still  governs  the  nations  :  its  Popes  reign  as  did 
Trajan  or  Marcus  Aurelius.  Peter  and  Paul  take 
the  place  of  Eomulus  and  Eemus  ;  archbishops 
and  bishops  replace  proconsuls ;  instead  of  legions 
come  troops  of  priests  and  monks  ;  instead  of  the 
Pretorian  Guard,  the  Jesuits.  Even  into  minute 
details,  peculiarities  of  law,  even  details  of  clothing, 
the  influence  of  the  ancient  Empire  and  its  insti- 
tutions can  be  traced.  It  is  not  in  the  least  a  Church 
like  the  Gospel  Communities,  or  like  the  national 
Churches  of  the  East ;  it  is  a  political  creation,  as 
considerable  as  a  universal  empire  because  it  is 
the  successor  of  the  Roman  Imperium.  The 
Pope,  who  is  called  '  king  '  and  '  supreme  pontiff,' 
is  the  successor  of  Csesar.  .  .  .  He  governs 
an  empire.  Therefore  it  is  a  useless  enterprise 
to  attack  him  with  the  weapons  of  doctrinal 
warfare  only.  .  .  .  For  this  Church,  to  govern 
is  as  important  as  to  announce  the  Gospel.  .  .  . 


144      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

He  is  held  to  have  no  piety  who  does  not,  first 
of  all,  submit  to  this  Papal  Church,  gain  her 
approval,  and  live  in  perpetual  dependence  on 
her.  .  .  .  The  development  the  Church  has  fol- 
lowed as  a  terrestrial  State  was  bound  to  lead 
logically  to  the  absolute  monarchy  and  infallibility 
of  the  Pope,  for  infallibility  in  a  terrestrial  theo- 
cracy signifies  nothing  more,  at  bottom,  than  abso- 
lute sovereignty  in  an  ordinary  state."  ^ 

This  special  character  of  Latin  Catholicism  has 
had  the  effect  of  modifying  greatly  the  features 
common  to  it  and  to  Eastern  Catholicism.  Thus, 
Herr  Harnack  observes,  the  principle  of  tradition 
is  proclaimed  as  loudly  by  the  Eoman  as  by  the 
Greek  Church ;  but  when  it  becomes  irksome,  the 
Church  passes  beyond  it;  the  Pope  becomes 
tradition.  The  same  thing  happens  with  orthodoxy ; 
"  the  politics  of  the  Pope  can  modify  it ;  by  means 
of  subtle  distinctions  many  a  dogma  has  changed 
its  meaning ;  new  dogmas  are  established ;  in 
many  respects  doctrine  has  become  arbitrary." 
The  tradition  of  ritual  is  no  more  really  unchange- 
able than  that  of  doctrine,  and  the  same  may  be 
said  of  religious  life,  the  old  monastical  system 
having  been  transformed  to  the  point  of  becoming, 
in  great  institutions, "  the  exact  contrary  of  what  it 
1  Pages  157-159. 


THE    CHURCH  145 

was.  This  Church  possesses  in  its  organization  a 
unique  faculty  for  adapting  itself  to  the  course  of 
history ;  it  remains  always  the  ancient  Church,  or 
at  least  appears  to  do  so,  and  is  always  new."  ^ 

Herr  Harnack  does  not  insist  on  this  flexibility 
of  the  Eoman  Church,  he  seems  to  see  in  it  a 
defect  rather  than  a  merit,  and  without  doubt  he 
does  not  estimate  sufficiently  its  importance  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  general  philosophy  of  Chris- 
tianity and  of  its  history.  But  there  is  a  certain 
piquancy  in  meeting  a  liberal-minded  and  learned 
Protestant  who  is  inclined  to  think  the  Church  of 
Rome  changes  too  much,  and  is  astonished  that 
She  should  change  so  frequently  and  so  easily. 
How  many  others  have  made  it  a  repioach  to  her, 
that  She  does  not  change  enough ! 

»  Pages  159,  160. 


CHAPTER  II 

Although  the  statement  has  been  repeatedly  made 
for  several  centuries,  it  is  difficult  to  understand, 
without  the  preparation  of  a  special  theological 
education,  how  the  Society  of  Christ  was  something 
less  visible  and  less  external  than  the  Roman 
Church.  This  Society,  comprising  those  who 
accepted  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  was  not  formed  of 
pure  spirits  who  had  no  other  bond  than  a  com- 
mon sentiment.  They  were  not  numerous ;  but 
the  fewer  their  numbers  are  reckoned  at,  the  more 
distinctly  they  stand  out  against  the  surrounding 
world.  The  Society  was  composed  of  certain 
faithful  ones  who  persevered  to  the  end,  and  met 
again  after  the  Passion  to  form  the  nucleus  of  the 
first  Christian  community.  They  form  a  circum- 
scribed group,  perfectly  distinct,  a  very  centralized, 
even  a  hierarchical  fraternity.  Jesus  is  the  centre 
and  the  chief,  the  incontestable  authority.  Around 
Him  the  disciples  are  not  a  confused  mass ;  the 
Saviour  has  distinguished  among  them  the  Twelve, 


THE   CHURCH  147 

and  has  associated  tliem,  directly  and  effectively, 
with  His  ministry  ;  even  among  the  Twelve  there 
is  one  who  stands  first,  not  only  by  priority  of 
conversion  or  the  ardour  of  his  zeal,  but  by  a  kind 
of  designation  by  the  Master,  accepted  by  the 
apostolic  community  with  consequences  still 
evident  in  their  history. 

It  was  a  practical  situation,  apparently  brought 
about  by  the  wanderings  of  the  Galilean  ministry, 
but  also  evidently  received  and  ratified  by  Jesus 
some  time  before  the  Passion.  There  is  no  need 
to  look  for  formal  programmes,  constitutional 
charters,  pompous  inaugurations.  Jesus  provided 
for  the  diffusion  of  the  gospel  in  the  present,  and 
thus  prepared  the  kingdom  to  come.  Neither  the 
society  round  him,  nor  the  kingdom,  was  an  in- 
visible, impalpable  reality,  a  sect  of  souls,  but  a 
society  of  men  which  carried  the  gospel,  and  was 
to  become  the  kingdom. 

The  Church  was  born  and  endured  throucrh  the 
development  of  an  organization  whose  outline  is 
traced  in  the  gospel.  It  was  a  community  having 
as  its  basis  a  belief  in  the  "good  news"  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus ;  as  its  law,  charity ;  as  its 
end,  the  propagation  of  the  great  hope  ;  as  its  form 
of  government,  the  distinction  between  the  apos- 
tolic  college   and    the    ordinary  disciples.      The 


148      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Twelve  form  a  kind  of  directing  committee,  with 
Simon  Peter  at  the  head.  As  yet  nothing  can  be 
seen  resembling  the  administration  of  a  monarchy. 
The  saying  of  the  Saviour,  "  Whosoever  would  be 
first  among  you  shall  be  the  servant  of  all,"  ^  is 
applied  literally.  The  community  knows  but  one 
Master,  one  Lord,  who  is  the  Christ,  and  knows 
no  dominating  authority :  the  hierarchy  that 
exists  is  that  of  devotion.  Nevertheless,  a  positive 
power  of  social  order  belongs  to  the  apostles, 
that  of  receiving  converts  into  the  community, 
excluding  the  unworthy,  and  maintaining  good 
order. 

This  state  of  things  was  the  result  of  all  that 
Jesus  did  and  willed :  for  the  Saviour  did  not 
abandon  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  first 
comers,  but  confided  it  to  those  who  left  all  to 
follow  Him.  It  matters  little  that  this  first 
Christian  group  had  as  yet  no  consciousness  that 
it  formed  a  society  distinct  from  Judaism  :  its  own 
vital  principle,  obtained  from  its  faith  in  Jesus, 
had  already  provided  it  with  means  of  subsistence : 
its  individuality  was  to  grow  in  the  struggle  it 
had  to  face  in  order  to  exist  and  extend.  The 
apostles  were  no  more  restricted  to  a  purely  inner 
sphere  of  action  than  was  Jesus  Himself.  Their 
1  Mark  x.  44. 


THE   CHURCH  149 

activity  tended  to  the  formation  of  a  religious 
society,  and  it  was  not  only  later  that  the  incon- 
veniences of  external  action  became  evident.  The 
gospel  of  Jesus  has  its  reverse  side  in  the  absolute 
character  of  its  formula,  which  is  at  once  its 
weakness  and  the  condition  of  its  entry  into  the 
world :  the  gospel  of  the  apostles  has  its  reverse 
side  in  the  explosion  of  enthusiasm,  which  is  an 
element  of  its  force,  and  a  disconcerting  pheno- 
menon for  those  who  do  not  yet  believe.  Never- 
theless it  is  always  the  living  gospel,  not  spirit 
merely,  but  body  also  from  the  beginning. 

Christian  communities  were  founded  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  soon  became  the  Church,  entirely 
distinct  and  even  separated  from  the  Synagogue. 
In  these  communities  the  apostles  and  early 
missionaries  established  colleges  of  elders,  or 
superintendents,  to  govern  the  societies  as  they 
themselves  had  governed  the  first  community  at 
Jerusalem.  The  organization  of  the  body  of 
elders,  the  affirmation  of  their  rights,  the  pre- 
eminence of  the  bishop  in  the  body  and  in  the 
community,  the  pre-eminence  of  the  bisliop  of 
Eome  amongst  the  bishops,  these  changes  are 
only  defined  and  established  in  the  course  of  time, 
according  to  the  needs  of  the  evangelical  work. 
The  Church  became,  at  important  moments,  what 


ISO      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

it  had  to  become  in  order  not  to  decline  and 
perish,  dragging  the  gospel  down  with  it.  Never- 
theless, it  created  no  essential  portion  of  its  con- 
stitution. An  organ  which  up  to  one  moment 
seemed  rudimentary,  and  of  little  vigour,  took  on 
the  proportions  and  structure  that  an  imminent 
necessity  demanded :  then  it  existed  in  this 
acquired  form,  except  for  accessory  modifications 
produced  on  the  occasion  of  other  developments 
to  preserve  the  equilibrium  of  the  whole.  This 
equilibrium  was  seldom  established  without  in- 
ternal movement,  having  all  the  characters  of  a 
serious  crisis.  Such,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  the 
law  of  all  development,  and  the  natural  growth  of 
living  things  knows  similar  experiences.  These 
struggles  do  not  prove  a  diminution  of  life,  but 
that  life  is  threatened :  when  the  crisis  is  over,  and 
the  power  of  the  organism  is  augmented,  it  is  to 
be  praised  for  its  vitality,  not  blamed  because  it 
suffered  or  because  it  did  not  succumb.  The 
Church  can  fairly  say  that,  in  order  to  be  at  all 
times  what  Jesus  desired  the  society  of  His 
friends  to  be,  it  had  to  become  what  it  has 
become :  for  it  has  become  what  it  had  to  be  to 
save  the  gospel  by  saving  itself. 

The    earliest    communities     could     not    have 
lasted  without  the  rudimentary  organization  their 


THE   CHURCH  151 

founders  gave  tbem.  The  college  of  elders  main- 
tained order  in  the  assemblies,  and  peace  among 
the  brethren,  ensured  the  management  of  alms, 
and  of  all  external  relations.  Just  as  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  had  formed  a  society,  and  as  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven  was  conceived  as  a  society,  not  as  a 
coalition  of  fervent  and  perfect  individualists,  the 
Christian  communities  naturally  formed  societies, 
confraternities  :  they  needed  the  preservative 
element  of  all  society — authority.  When  there 
appeared  in  the  Churches  (and  they  appeared 
quite  early)  movement  of  ideas,  tendencies  more 
or  less  marked  and  more  or  less  divergent,  in- 
ternal and  external  difficulties  more  or  less  con- 
siderable, the  necessity  of  a  directing  power 
became  still  more  pressing,  and  the  only  hope  for 
the  community  to  hold  its  ground  was  by  means 
of  a  perfect  unity.  It  is  certain  that  Christianity 
and  the  gospel  would  have  gone  imder  in  the 
gnostic  crisis,  without  the  opposition  that  the 
ruling  episcopate  made  to  the  flood  of  heresies, 
and  the  episcopate  strengthened  its  position 
decidedly  in  this  struggle.  Does  it  not  follow 
that  the  Church  is  as  necessary  to  the  gospel  as 
the  gospel  to  the  Church,  and  that  the  two  are 
really  one,  as  the  gospel  and  the  group  of 
believers  were  one  during  the  ministry  of  Jesus  ? 


152       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

Surely  there  is  nothing  but  a  spirit  of  epigram 
in  the  reflection  on  "  the  mediocrity  "  that "  founded 
authority."  Were  the  Christians  of  Lyons  in  the 
time  of  Irenaeus,  or  those  of  Africa  in  the  time  of 
Tertullian,  so  much  inferior  to  the  believers  of 
Corinth  as  we  know  them  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  ? 
Does  the  diminution  of  the  early  acts  of  grace 
prove  that  real  faith  was  any  less  strong,  and  is  it 
a  matter  of  regret  that  the  whole  Church  was  not 
given  over  to  Montanism  ?  Even  in  matters  of 
religion,  attacks  of  fever  are  not  the  normal 
conditions  of  life. 

In  proportion  as  the  episcopate  increased,  the 
preponderance  of  the  Church  of  Eome  became 
evident.  Herr  Harnack  has  himself  shown  this 
point  very  well  in  his  "  History  of  Dogma."  ^ 
This  Church  played  a  considerable  part  in  the 
combat  with  gnosticism ;  the  principal  leaders  of 
the  gnostics  came  to  Rome  as  to  the  central  point 
of  Christendom,  where  it  was  most  important  to 
have  their  doctrines  approved,  and  there  they 
were  condemned  in  succession.  But  it  is  not 
only  thus  that  the  Eoman  community  appears  in 
its  dignity  as  principal  Church.  Each  particular 
Church  had  the  sentiment  of  the  general  unity, 
and  even  anxiety  for  it :  it  held  itself  within  this 
1  I.  439-454. 


THE   CHURCH  153 

unity  while   superintending  the  maintenance   of 
the  standard    by   the   others   around   it.     But   a 
central  body  was  needed  to   give  some   kind   of 
support  to  the  force  of  the  universal  tendency,  and 
to  safeguard  the  concerted  action  of  the  Churches, 
by  making  its  results  visible  and  regular.     This 
central  point  and  capital  of   ecclesiastical  unity 
was  indicated  at  once  by  the  grandest  Christian 
memories,  and  by   the   political  situation  of  the 
Empire.     Incontestably  it  is  owing  to  its  rank  as 
the  capital   that  Eome  owed  the  attraction  that 
brought  to  it  the  two  most  important  personages 
of  the  Apostolic  Church.     Peter  and  Paul  both 
came  to  Eome  :  but  wliatever  may  have  been  the 
prestige  of  Paul,  that  of  the  prince  of  the  apostles 
remained  the  greater  in  traditional    recollection. 
Their   memory  was   honoured,  and   their   tombs 
guarded.     Many  of  the  elders  who  governed  the 
community  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century 
had  known   them,  and  retained  full  memory  of 
their  martydom.     Fifty  years  later,  when  Irena3us 
came  to  Eome,  there  were  certainly  still  faithful 
to  be  found  there  who  had  been  disciples  of  Peter's 
and  Paul's  disciples,  and  a  list   of  bishops   was 
kept,  going  back  to  Linus,  the  first,  he  who  had 
taken  up  the  government  of  the  Eoman  Churcli 
after  the  death  of  Peter. 


154      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

Critics  have  noted  that  the  bishop  of  Eome, 
whose  position  is  so  outstanding  before  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  is  hardly  distinguished  from 
the  body  of  the  elders  at  the  end  of  the  first,  and 
that  solitary  episcopal  rule  was  constituted  later 
in  the  West  than  in  the  East.  The  very  im- 
portance of  the  community,  which  must  early 
have  been  divided  into  several  groups,  aided  to 
maintain  for  long  the  pre-eminence  of  the  council 
of  Presbyters,  which  indeed  always  retained  at 
Eome  a  greater  effective  authority,  under  the 
bishop,  than  it  seems  to  have  had  in  other 
Churches.  No  doubt  all  the  same  there  was  from 
the  beginning  at  Ptome,  as  elsewhere,  a  kind  of 
president  in  the  body  of  elders,  who  soon  became 
the  sole  bishop.  The  Epistle  of  St.  Clement  to 
the  Corinthians  is  written  in  the  name  of  the 
Eoman  Church,  and  the  personality  of  the  writer 
does  not  appear :  nevertheless,  the  letter  was 
received  and  kept  as  an  Epistle  of  Clement,  who 
was  the  responsible  author  and  the  official 
mouthpiece  of  the  community.  This  very  Epistle 
makes  it  evident  that  the  Eoman  Church  inter- 
ested itself  in  the  internal  life  of  far-off  Christian 
communities,  and  believed  itself  to  have  the 
right  to  intervene  in  their  affairs  with  authority. 
Paul  would  not   have  spoken    to   the   disunited 


THE   CHURCH  155 

Corinthians  with  more  force  than  Clement,  al- 
though it  is  still  from  the  community  as  the  heir 
of  the  apostolic  tradition,  and  not  from  the  personal 
successor  of  Peter,  that  the  word  comes.  This 
distinction  is  unimportant,  for  the  sentiment  of 
authority  is  identical  in  the  case  of  Clement,  who 
speaks  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  whose  mouth- 
piece he  is,  and  in  the  case  of  Victor  or  Callixtus 
or  Stephen,  who  speak  in  their  own  names,  as 
filling  the  place  of  the  apostle  Peter. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  contested  that  the  central 
position  of  Eome  both  attracted  the  apostles  to 
it  and  then  enabled  its  bishop  to  exercise  an 
influence  that  no  otlier  in  another  place  could 
have  had.  The  importance  of  the  town  con- 
tiibuted  to  the  importance  of  the  see,  but  it 
cannot  be  said  to  have  created  it.  It  is  possible 
to  believe  that  the  force  of  events,  acquired  experi- 
ence, tlie  fact  that  Christianity  was  penetrating  to 
Eome  without  them,  that  the  Koman  community 
was  increasing,  and  that  an  apostolic  intervention 
seemed  necessary  to  achieve  its  establishment,  lest 
a  point  that  ought  to  radiate  their  influence  should 
be  left  outside  of  it,  that  all  these  considera- 
tions together,  led  the  apostles  to  the  capital  of  the 
Empire.  We  may  imagine  also,  that  when  they 
died,  they  little   thought  they  were  bequeathing 


156      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

a  master  to  Ca3sar,  or  even  that  tliey  had  given 
a  supreme  chief  to  the  Church.  The  thought  of 
the  great  Advent  was  too  strong  in  their  minds, 
the  questions  of  creed  and  of  government  too 
little  familiar,  for  them  to  see  in  Rome  and  the 
Roman  Church  anything  but  the  providential 
centre  of  Christian  evangelization.  Their  death 
consecrated  what  their  presence  had  signified. 
Nowhere  else  liad  the  evangelical  tradition  been 
more  solidly  implanted,  nowhere  else  had  it  found 
a  soil  more  favourable  to  its  preservation.  With 
full  consciousness  they  made  Rome  the  capital  of 
the  gospel.  At  the  same  time,  all  unknowing, 
they  made  the  Roman  Church  the  mother  and 
queen  of  the  Churches  of  the  whole  world ;  they 
left  the  inheritance  of  the  apostles  in  hands 
capable  of  making  its  value  felt. 

The  ease  with  which  the  bishops  of  Rome 
established  their  superiority  over  the  other 
Christian  communities  was  not  a  thing  entirely 
unforeseen  by  the  apostles.  The  head  of  the 
Empire,  the  accepted  head  of  the  world,  ought  to 
be  also,  as  far  as  was  necessary,  the  head  of 
universal  Christianity.  It  is  not  astonishing 
that  this  idea  was  never  lost,  and  that  the 
development  of  Christianity  only  gave  it  added 
strength  as  the  need  arose  for  new  applications  of 


THE   CHURCH  157 

it.  A  matter  still  less  astonishing  is,  that  the 
consciousness  of  this  pre-eminence,  which  was  a 
burden  rather  than  a  privilege,  should  have  been 
especially  vivid  in  the  town  where  it  had  its  place 
of  action,  and  whence  it  derived  its  existence. 
The  necessity  of  union  with  the  Church  of  Eome, 
a  union  implying  a  certain  subordination  in  riglit 
and  in  fact,  on  the  part  of  the  other  Churches,  was 
as  profoundly  felt  by  the  Churches  of  the  West, 
founded  by  Eome,  as  the  idea,  at  Eome  itself,  of 
a  kind  of  general  responsibility  for  the  common 
welfare. 

It  was  otherwise  in  the  East,  where  the 
Churches,  not  owing  their  existence  to  Eome,  were 
less  closely  attached  to  her  by  tradition.  It  would 
seem  that,  as  the  idea  of  union  with  Eome  was 
not  implanted  in  them  at  their  origin,  it  could 
never  afterwards  acquire  strength  enough  to  resist 
political  divisions  and  special  tendencies.  The 
transference  of  the  seat  of  Empire  to  Constanti- 
nople prepared  the  way  for  the  schism,  and  it  is 
well  established  that  the  Greek  Church  is,  in 
itself,  a  political  institution,  whose  principle  is  in 
no  way  traditional.^  With  a  more  complete 
autonomy,  and  with  a  less  vivid  sentiment  of  all 
that  the  bishop  of  Eome  owed  to  the  succession 
1  Cf.  Duchesne,  "  lilglises  Sepaiees,"  163-227. 


158       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

of  Peter,  the  Eastern  Church  during  the  early 
centuries  had  yet  gravitated  towards  Eome;  it 
would  have  continued  to  do  so,  and  would  have 
come  more  and  more  into  the  orbit  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  if  the  normal  development  of 
ecclesiastical  government  had  not  been  fettered  by 
political  considerations  as  soon  as  the  Empire  was 
converted.  In  proportion  as  the  bishops  of  Eome 
acquire  a  more  precise  idea  of  their  function  as 
moderators,  and  translate  it  into  a  positive  and 
Divine  right,  the  Easterns  come  to  understand  the 
claim  less  and  less,  and  finish  by  no  longer  com- 
prehending it  at  all :  they  can  see  only  Rome's 
pretensions,  and  have  no  feeling  of  what  is 
demanded  for  the  maintenance  of  unity  beyond 
the  divisions  of  frontiers.  So  completely  have 
they  made  Christianity  a  State  religion,  that  once 
Eome  is  lost  to  the  Empire,  it  seems  to  them  that 
the  bishop  of  Eome  has  nothing  to  do  with  their 
concerns,  and  that  the  bishop  of  Constantinople, 
the  new  Eome,  has  the  same  rights  and  powers  over 
the  East  that  the  bishop  of  the  old  has  over  the 
Western  countries  that  obey  him.  At  a  time  when 
the  Popes  recognize  no  frontiers  and  ensure,  in 
the  spirit  for  which  Herr  Harnack  praises  them, 
the  independence  of  religion  before  the  secular 
authority,  the  patriarchs    of    Constantinople   are 


THE   CHURCH  159 

enclosing  their  Church  in  the  fragments  of  the 
Empire,  and  in  the  effort  to  organize  their  own 
Papacy  are  making  that  of  the  Emperor.  By 
bringing  Christianity  back  to  the  proportions  of 
a  national  worship,  they  destroyed,  as  far  as  they 
could,  that  conception  of  Catholicism  tliat  the 
Eoman  Church  had  received  as  a  sacred  charge  and 
intended  to  keep. 

If  this  Church  has  assumed  an  imperial  air 
it  did  not  possess  in  the  early  days,  if  She  has 
desired  to  give  juridical,  or  rather  constitutional, 
form  to  her  pre-eminence  and  her  actions,  it  is 
not  only  in  virtue  of  a  local  and  inherited  tradi- 
tion of  dominion,  which  passed  from  the  Empire 
to  the  Church,  from  Caesar  to  the  successor  of 
Peter,  but  as  the  result  of  a  general  tendency, 
which,  from  the  beginning,  inclined  the  Church  to 
organize  herself  and  her  government,  a  tendency 
felt  in  the  East  as  much  as  in  the  West,  The 
Church  had  possessions,  discipline,  a  hierarchy  • 
She  could  not  dispense  with  legal  rights.  But 
legal  rights  cannot  exist  without  an  authority  to 
guarantee  them,  and  tliis  authority,  to  be  effi- 
cacious, must  have  its  official  representatives. 
The  Popes  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  wished 
to  be,  in  the  last  resort,  the  judges  of  all  Chis- 
tendom,  as  those  of  the  two  preceding  centuries 


i6o      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

desired  the  Eoman  Church  to  be  the  type  of  all 
Churches  for  teaching,  organization,  and  discipline. 
In   both   cases   the   pretension  is   the  same,  but 
applied  to  different  situations.     Eome  claims  no 
new  power,  or  rather,  the  power  is  no  newer  than 
the  situation  it  is  designed  to  meet.     The  Church 
had  to  find  for  herself  a  government  or  cease  to 
exist ;  but  government  in  a  Church,  one  and  uni- 
versal, is  inconceivable  without  a  central  authority. 
A  central  ideal,  with  no  real  power,  as  conceived 
by  St.  Cyprian,  would  have  been  useless.     Some 
final  solution  had  to  be  found  to  important  ques- 
tions.    Particular  councils   could  not   have   had 
sufficient  prestige  ;  general  councils  could  never 
have  been  anything  but  a  tribunal  for  extraordi- 
nary occasions,  and  experience  showed  that  these 
assemblies  had  many  great  inconveniences.     The 
superior  and  permanent  tribunal  before  which  all 
more  important  cases  should  naturally  come,  by 
which  all  conflicts  should  be  finally  decided,  could 
be  only  that  Church,   the  most  apostolic  of  all, 
holding  the  tradition  of  Peter  and  Paul,  whose 
chiefs  did  not  hesitate  to  call  themselves  successors 
of  the  prince  of  the  apostles. 

To  the  Churches  maintained  or  established 
in  barbarian  lands,  and  to  the  nations  them- 
selves, the  Pope  appears  not  only  as  the  supreme 


THE   CHURCH  i6i 

judge  of  all  ecclesiastical  causes  and  controversies. 
From  tlie  end  of  the  eighth  century,  he  acts  as  the 
depository  of  the  Imperial  tradition,  transferring 
the  title  of  Csesar  to  Charlemagne  and  his  suc- 
cessors. Towards  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century, 
all  authority  seems  vested  in  him,  not  only  over 
particular  Churches,  but  also  over  nations.  The 
Pope  has  become  social  instructor,  tutor  of 
monarchies,  head  of  the  Christian  Confederation, 
while  he  remains  and  becomes  more  and  more 
supreme  as  the  chief  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy, 
the  arbiter  of  the  faith,  the  guardian  of  discipline, 
the  bishop  of  all  the  Churches.  His  two  offices 
are  not  distinguished  one  from  the  other.  Al- 
though the  first  was  not  conferred  upon  him  as  the 
direct  result  of  a  purely  religious,  evangelical, 
Catholic  principle,  it  was  found  to  be  included  in 
the  second  by  force  of  circumstances.  In  the 
chaos  in  which  the  Empire  of  the  West  foundered, 
the  Church  maintained  her  structure ;  she  alone 
survived,  and  the  new  kingdoms  arose  and  ad- 
vanced towards  civilization  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Church,  and  under  her  influence  and  direction.  The 
Church  could  not  accomplish  the  work  of  tlieir 
conversion  without  be^coming  also  their  instructress 
in  temporal  order.  She  had  to  be  their  mistress 
in  every  branch  of  knowledge,  and  teacli  tliiun  the 

M 


1 62        THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

elements  of  ancient  wisdom  side  by  side  Avith  the 
gospel  of  salvation  ;  she  had  even  to  make  herself 
feared  in  the  temporal  realm,  that  she  should  not 
be  overwhelmed  in  the  spiritual.  The  individu- 
ality of  the  growing  nations  was  scarcely  beginning 
to  be  defined ;  the  memory  of  the  Eoman  Empire, 
of  Eoman  unity,  rested  over  them  all,  idealized  in 
the  sentiment  of  Catholic  unity ;  a  kind  of  great 
State  grew  into  being,  made  up  of  States  still  un- 
formed, a  universal  republic,  which  was  a  Church, 
and  whose  true  and  only  natural  leader  was  the 
Pope,  having  under  him  the  temporal  sovereigns 
whether  they  would  or  no.  In  this  confusion, 
where  she  must  dominate  or  perish,  the  Church 
became  transformed,  and  grew  in  stature  contin- 
ually, grew  in  order  to  endure,  because  the  changes 
which  shaped  themselves  in  her  were  the  very 
conditions  of  her  continued  existence. 

Had  there  been  any  actual  autonomy  of  the 
individual  Churches,  Christianity  would  have  been 
completely  submerged  in  superstition  and  Germanic 
feudalism.  Eeforms  became  possible  as  soon  as 
Eome  had  full  power  to  support  them,  even  though 
she  had  not  always  had  the  initiative  to  propose 
them.  The  proud  temporal  position  of  the  Popes 
of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  was  only 
the  safeguard  of  their  independence  in  the  spiritual 


THE    CHURCH  163 

sphere ;  and  in  this  sphere,  the  Popes  were  per- 
force what  they  were  and  what  they  became,  in 
order  that  the  Church  might  be  still  the  Church, 
and  continue  to  represent  Christianity  and  the 
religion  of  Jesus.  What  would  have  happened  had 
the  Pontiffs  suddenly  perceived  that  the  essence 
of  Christianity  was  faith  in  God  the  Father,  and 
that  their  duty  consisted  in  representing  this 
truth  to  those  who  might  be  willing  to  make 
their  religion  out  of  this  alone  ? 

From  the  fourteenth  century  onwards,  the 
general  conditions  of  Catholic  society  were  modi- 
fied. There  was  no  longer  in  any  truth  a  Christian 
republic,  but  Christian  States,  sufficiently  strono' 
in  themselves,  and  never  again  to  be  united 
by  a  common  faith  or  a  common  danger  in 
a  common  course  of  action,  as  they  had  been  for 
the  Crusades.  In  fact,  the  authority  of  the  Pope 
was  exercised  with  more  and  more  difficulty  in  the 
political  sphere ;  the  Church,  rich  and  powerful  in 
every  State,  was  sapped  with  increasing  corruption. 
A  great  reform  became  essential  to  free  it  from 
the  world,  and  return  it  to  its  proper  path.  But 
at  this  point  Church  and  State  were  so  in- 
timately bound  together,  that  tlie  independent 
organization  of  religious  power  and  political  power 
could    not    be    accomplished  without    difficuUii'S, 


i64      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

shocks,  and  forcible  separations.  Eegarding 
events  from  this  distance  of  time,  after  allowing 
that  the  Papacy  of  the  fifteenth  centuries  was 
much  too  preoccupied  with  its  own  interests,  and 
not  enough  with  the  reform  that  was  always  more 
urgent,  it  is  evident  that  if  by  force  of  circum- 
stances, the  political  influence  of  the  Church 
steadily  decreased,  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Pope 
as  steadily  increased,  and  became  that  which  it 
had  to  become  if  the  Catholic  Church  were  to 
be  preserved  in  the  midst  of  the  revolutions 
and  troubles  of  modern  times.  The  Pope  remains 
the  father  of  the  faithful  and  the  head  of  the 
Churches.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  his  power 
will  never  again  be  exercised  in  the  forms  it 
assumed  in  the  Middle  ages,  but  this  power  is  of 
constant  importance  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Church,  and  the  preservation  in  the  Church  of  the 
gospel. 


CHAPTER   III 

Thus  to  reproach  the  Catholic  Church  for  the 
development  of  her  constitution  is  to  reproach  her 
for  having  chosen  to  live,  and  that,  moreover,  when 
her  life  was  indispensable  for  the  preservation  of 
the  gospel  itself.  There  is  nowhere  in  her  history 
any  gap  in  continuity,  or  the  absolute  creation  of 
a  new  system :  every  step  is  a  deduction  from  the 
preceding,  so  that  we  can  proceed  from  the 
actual  constitution  of  the  Papacy  to  the  Evangel- 
ical Society  around  Jesus,  different  as  they  are 
from  one  another,  without  meeting  any  violent 
revolution  to  change  the  government  of  the 
Christian  community.  At  the  same  time  every 
advance  is  explained  by  a  necessity  of  fact 
accompanied  by  logical  necessities,  so  that  the 
historian  cannot  say  that  the  total  extent  of  the 
movement  is  outside  tlie  gospel.  The  fact  is,  it 
proceeds  from  it  and  continues  it. 

Many  objections,  very  grave  from  the  point  of 
view   of  a   certain    theology,    have   little    or   no 


1 66      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

significance  for  the  historian.     It  is    certain,  for 
instance,  that  Jesus  did  not  systematize  beforehand 
the  constitution  of  the  Church  as  that  of  a  govern- 
ment established  on  earth  and  destined  to  endure 
for  a  long  series  of  centuries.     But  a  conception 
far  more  foreign  still  to  His  thoughts  and  to  His 
authentic  teaching  is  that  of  an  invisible  society 
formed  for  ever  of  those  who  have  in  their  hearts 
faith  in  the  goodness  of  God.     We  have  seen  that 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  already  contained  a  rudiment 
of  social  organization,  and  that  the  kingdom  also 
was  announced  as  a  society.     Jesus  foretold  the 
kingdom,  and  it  was  the  Church  that  came ;  she 
came,  enlarging  the  form  of  the  gospel,  which  it 
was  impossible  to  preserve  as  it  was,  as  soon  as  the 
Passion  closed  the  ministry  of  Jesus.     There  is 
no  institution  on  the  earth  or  in  history  whose 
status  and  value  may  not  be  questioned  if  the 
principle  is  established   that  nothing  may  exist 
except   in  its  original  form.      Such   a   principle 
is  contrary  to  the  law  of  life,  which  is  movement 
and  a  continual  effort  of  adaptation  to  conditions 
always   new   and   perpetually   changing.      Chris- 
tianity has  not  escaped  this  law,  and  cannot  be 
reproached  for  submission  to  it.     It  could  not  do 
otherwise  than  it  has  done. 

The   preservation   of  its    primitive   state   was 


THE    CHURCH  167 

impossible,  its   restoration   now    is    ef|nally   out 
of    the   question,    because   the   conditions   under 
wliich  the  gospel  was  produced  have  disappeared 
for  ever.      History   shows  the    evolution  of  the 
elements  that  composed  it.     These  elements  have 
undergone,   as   they   could  not   fail   to   undergo, 
many    transformations ;     but     they    are    always 
recognizable,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  in  the  Catholic 
Church   what   stands  to-day  for  the  idea  of  the 
Heavenly  kingdom,  for  the  idea  of  the  Messiah, 
the  maker  of  the  kingdom,  and  for  the  idea  of  the 
apostolate,  or  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom,  that 
is  to  say,  the  three  essential  elements  of  the  living 
gospel,  which  have  become  what  they  were  forced 
to  become  in  order  to  endure  at  all.     The  theory 
of  a  purely  inner  kingdom  suppresses  them  and 
makes   an  abstraction  of  the   real   gospel.     The 
tradition  of  the  Church  keeps  them,  interpreting 
them  and  adapting  them  to  the  varying  condition 
of  humanity. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  desire  that  Clirist  should 
have  determined  beforeliand  the  interpretations 
and  adaptations  that  time  would  exact,  since  they 
had  no  reason  to  exist  before  the  hour  whicli 
rendered  them  necessary.  It  was  neitlicr  possible 
nor  useful  for  Jesus  to  reveal  to  His  disciples  tlie 
future    of    the    Church.     The  thoufrht    that   the 


l6S      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Saviour  left  to  them  was  that  they  must  continue 
to  wish,  to  prepare,  to  await  and  to  realize  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  view  of  the  kingdom  has 
been  enlarged  and  modified,  the  conception  of  its 
definite  advent  fills  a  smaller  place,  but  the  object 
of  the  gospel  remains  the  object  of  the  Church. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
the  Church,  for  all  her  advanced  age,  for  all  her 
apparent  want  of  anxiety  as  to  the  imminence  of 
the  final  judgment,  and  for  all  the  long  future 
she  anticipates  still  on  the  earth,  regards  herself 
nevertheless  as  a  provisional  institution,  a  transi- 
tional organization.  The  Church  of  the  world, 
called  the  Church  militant,  is,  as  it  were,  the 
vestibule  of  the  Church  triumphant,  which  is  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  realized  in  eternity,  still  held 
to  be  possible  in  the  fulness  of  time.  If  the 
dimensions  of  the  evangelical  horizon  have 
changed,  the  point  of  view  remains  the  same. 
The  Church  has  kept  the  fundamental  idea  of 
Christ's  teaching :  no  terrestrial  institution  realizes 
the  kingdom  finally,  and  the  gospel  only  prepares 
the  way  for  the  accomplishment.  It  is  easy  to 
divine  why  theologians,  like  Herr  Harnack, 
abandon  evangelical  eschatology.  But  the  question 
at  issue  is  only  to  know  if  eschatology  was  not 
historically  an  essential  element  of  the  gospel,  and 


THE    CHURCH  169 

if  the  Cliiirch,  which  has  retained  tliis  essential 
element,  is  not  the  veritable  continuation  of  Christ. 
What  if  the  gospel  eschatology  were  at  bottom  the 
expressive  symbol  of  complex  and  indescribable 
realities;  what  if  the  eschatology  of  the  Churcli 
be  also  a  symbol,  always  striving  for  perfection, 
of  the  same  expected  benefits,  the  traditional 
theologian  can  still  support  it,  and  so  continue  to 
find  the  essence  of  the  gospel  where  Jesus  desired 
to  set  it.  It  means  that  Jesus  and  the  Churcli 
have  their  eyes  raised  always  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, towards  the  same  symbol  of  hope,  and  that 
the  Church  maintains  the  attitude  of  Jesus, 
towards  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 

In  their  warfare  against  tradition,  the  most 
enlightened  Protestant  theologians,  those  who,  like 
Herr  Harnack,  recognize  a  kind  of  relative 
necessity  in  the  Catholic  development,  argue  none 
the  less  eagerly  about  it,  as  though  it  were  not 
evident  that  the  desire  to  restore  Christianity  to 
its  primitive  form  and  organization  is  really  a 
desire  to  condemn  it  to  death,  and  as  if  change 
were  not  the  natural  condition  of  its  preservation 
and  the  expression  of  its  vitality.  They  are  less 
exacting  for  themselves,  when  concerned  to  justify 
their  own  religious-  convictions,  unlikely  as  they 
are    to   be    confused   with   the    gospel    of  Jesus. 


I70      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

What  else  do  they  do  but  adapt  the  gospel  to  the 
needs  of  their  special  consciences  ?  The  Church 
also,  from  the  beginning,  adapts  the  gospel  to  the 
needs  of  the  men  she  addresses. 

It  is  not  the  personal  adaptation  that  continues 
the  ministry  of  Christ,  the  preaching  of  the  "  good 
news"  and  the  preparation  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven.  Even  among  Protestants,  the  directing 
tradition  has  a  considerable  influence  on  the  way 
the  Divine  word  is  understood,  and  without  this 
tradition  the  effect  of  the  written  gospel  on 
the  mass  of  believers  would  probably  be  very 
slight  or  not  always  salutary.  In  all  Chris- 
tian communities  there  is  a  service  of  the 
gospel  which  ensures  the  transmission  and  appli- 
cation of  the  Master  s  word.  The  Catholic  Church 
is  such  a  service  formed  by  the  centuries  and 
continuous  from  the  beginning.  To  be  identical 
with  the  religion  of  Jesus,  it  has  no  more  need 
to  reproduce  exactly  the  forms  of  the  Galilean 
gospel,  than  a  man  has  need  to  preserve  at  fifty 
the  proportions,  features,  and  manner  of  life  of 
the  day  of  his  birth,  in  order  to  be  the  same 
individual.  The  identity  of  a  man  is  not  ensured 
by  making  him  return  to  his  cradle. 

The  Church,  to-day,  resembles  the  community 
of  the  first  disciples  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 


THE   CHURCH  171 

grown  man  resembles  the  child  he  was  at  first. 
The  identity  of  the  Church  or  of  the  man  is 
not  determined  by  permanent  immobility  of 
external  forms,  but  by  continuity  of  existence 
and  consciousness  of  life  through  the  perpetual 
transformations  which  are  life's  condition  and 
manifestation.  Setting  aside  all  theological 
subtleties,  the  Catholic  Church,  as  a  society 
founded  on  the  gospel,  is  identical  with  the  first 
circle  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  if  she  feels  herself 
to  be,  and  is,  in  the  same  relations  with  Jesus  as 
the  disciples  were,  if  there  is  a  general  correspon- 
dence between  her  actual  state  and  the  primitive 
state,  if  the  actual  organism  is  only  the  primitive 
organism  developed  and  decided,  and  if  the 
elements  of  the  Church  to-day  are  the  primitive 
elements,  grown  and  fortified,  adapted  to  the 
ever -increasing  functions  they  have  to  fulfil. 

It  is  the  very  duration  of  Christianity  that 
has  caused  this  evolution.  If  the  end  of  the 
world  had  arrived  in  the  years  that  followed  the 
publication  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  ecclesiastical 
development  would  not  have  taken  place,  and  the 
Church  even  would  hardly  have  existed.  But  the 
world  did  not  perisli :  the  Church  retained  a 
reason  for  existence  and  retains  it  still.  Her 
history  is  that  of  the  gospel  in  the  world,  and  to 


172       THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    CHURCH 

find  that  the  history  is  not  that  of  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  only  possible  if  the  religion  is  placed 
outside  history  and  the  actual  world. 

If  the  Church  were  entirely  a  political  institu- 
tion, such  as  Herr  Harnack  conceives  and  repre- 
sents her,  it  is  certain  that  she  would  have  nothing 
in  common  with  the  gospel,  and  would  simply  have 
to  be  regarded  as  the  successor  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  We  have  already  seen  in  what  sense 
the  Church  really  succeeded  the  Empire.  The 
memories  and  the  tradition  of  the  Empire,  con- 
ditioned, so  to  speak,  the  action  of  the  Church, 
but  did  not  change  her  essential  character. 
Whatever  can  be  said,  it  is  a  long  step  from  Leo 
XIII.  to  Trajan,  from  bishops  to  pro-consuls, 
from  monks  to  legionaries,  from  Jesuits  to  the 
Pretorian  Guard.  The  Pope  is  not  king,  in  so 
far  as  he  is  Pope,  and  the  question  is  still  of 
the  Universal  Church,  not  of  the  Empire.  The 
Catholics  do  not  regard  the  Pope  as  their  sovereign, 
but  as  their  spiritual  guide.  Although  they  re- 
ceive their  investiture  from  the  Pope,  the  bishops 
are  not  simple  delegates  either  in  law  or  in  fact ; 
if  the  Pope  is  the  successor  of  Peter,  the  bishops 
are  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  their 
ministry  is  not  of  a  political  order  nor  purely 
administrative.     It  is  only  by  way   of  metaphor 


THE   CHURCH  173 

that  the  faithful  can  be  compared  to  an  army. 
Secular  priests  and  monks  do  not  preach  the 
policy  of  the  Pope,  even  when  he  has  one ;  they 
preach  first  of  all  the  gospel,  with  the  traditional 
interpretation  the  Church  gives,  and  the  kingdom 
they  endeavour  to  extend  is  that  of  the  gospel, 
not  that  of  the  Pope,  so  far  as  that  is  distinct 
from  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Even  the  Jesuits, 
founded  to  defend  the  Eoman  Church  a^rainst 
Protestant  and  antipapal  reform,  are  not  political 
agents,  but  preachers  of  religion  and  religious 
educators,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  their 
methods  and  their  special  tendencies.  The  poli- 
tical side  of  the  great  institution,  Catholicism,  is 
naturally  the  one  that  first  strikes  those  who  are 
outside  it,  but  it  is  wholly  external,  even  accessory. 
Seen  from  within,  the  ecclesiastical  organization 
is  essentially  of  a  religious  order,  and  has  no  other 
reason  for  its  existence  than  the  preservation  and 
propagation  of  religion  in  the  world.  Although 
the  whole  Catholic  development,  superficially 
observed,  seems  to  tend  solely  to  augment  the 
authority  of  the  hierarchy,  or  rather  of  the  Pope, 
the  fundamental  principle  of  Catholicism  has 
never  ceased  to  be  the  very  priiicii)le  of  the  gosj)el. 
The  faithful  do  not  exist  for  tlie  sake  of  the 
hierarchy,  but  the  hierarchy  fur  ihe  sake  of  the 


174      THE    GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

faithful.  The  Church  does  not  exist  for  the  sake  of 
the  Pope,  but  the  Pope  for  the  sake  of  the  Church. 
Of  course,  the  Church  has  put  on  in  many 
respects  the  form  of  a  human  government,  and 
has  become  and  still  remains  a  political  power. 
None  the  less,  she  has  always  desired,  and  still 
desires,  quite  a  different  end.  The  fact  that  she  is 
of  political  importance,  and  that  politics  must 
reckon  with  her,  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
her  existence,  and  became  certain  as  soon  as 
Christianity  had  spread  sufficiently  through  the 
Roman  Empire.  That  she  should  set  herself  up 
as  a  political  power,  treating  with  governments  as 
an  equal  or  as  a  superior,  negotiating  religious 
affairs  with  them  as  international  treaties  are 
negotiated,  is  a  special  and  transitory  form  of  her 
relations  with  human  powers.  In  this  sense  the 
Church  has  not  always  been  a  political  power,  and 
may  cease  to  be  one.  The  actual  situation  now  is 
a  legacy  of  the  past,  to  be  dealt  with  only  with 
precaution.  But  it  is  possible  to  foresee  in  the 
future  a  general  comity  of  civilized  nations, 
wherein  the  Church,  as  a  spiritual  power,  in  no 
way  political  in  the  present  sense,  should  lose 
none  of  her  prestige,  none  of  her  independence, 
none  of  her  moral  influence.  Are  not  politics 
falling  more  and  more  from  the  hands  of  managers 


THE   CHURCH  175 

of  men,  into  the  hands  of  managers  of  affairs,  and 
will  tlioy  not  finally  remain  completely  there? 
What  would  the  Church  gain  by  treating  directly 
with  such  men  of  all  that  regards  herself,  and 
what  interest  would  they  have  to  occupy  them- 
selves with  such  matters  ?  .      ^ 

"We  may  even  go  further,  and  conjecture  that  the 
Church,  when  dealing  with  those  who  recognize  her 
authority,  will  find  a  procedure  more  conformable 
to  the  fundamental  equality  and  personal  dignity 
of  all  Christians.  In  the  universal  levelling  of 
ranks  which  is  in  prospect,  the  members  of  the 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy  may  be  less  great  person- 
ages in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  without  in  any  way 
losing  the  rights  of  their  ministry,  which  will 
assume  again,  more  visibly,  their  essential  form  of 
duties. 

In  any  case,  it  is  not  true  that  ecclesiastical 
authority  is,  or  ever  was,  a  species  of  external  con- 
straint repressing  all  personal  activity  of  con- 
science. The  Church  is  an  educator,  rather  than  a 
dominating  mistress  :  she  instructs  rather  than 
directs,  and  he  who  obeys  her  only  does  so  accord- 
ing to  his  conscience,  and  in  order  to  obey  God. 
In  principle,  Catholicism  aims,  as  much  as  Pro- 
testantism, at  the  formation  of  religious  person- 
alities, souls  masters  of  themselves,  pure  and  free 


176      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

consciences.  It  is  true,  the  danger  for  Catholicism 
is  that  of  desiring  too  much  to  govern  men  instead 
of  simply  elevating  their  souls.  It  cannot  be 
denied,  that  its  tendency,  reacting  against  Pro- 
testantism has  been  towards  the  effacement  of  the 
individual,  towards  the  careful  guardianship  of 
men,  towards  a  control  of  human  activity  which 
by  no  means  makes  for  the  development  of 
initiative.  But  it  is  only  a  tendency.  It  would 
be  going  almost  too  far  to  say  that  there  is  in 
the  Church  a  "  legion,"  whose  religious  and  political 
ideal  is  that  of  a  society  regulated  in  all  matters 
of  thought  and  action  by  a  kind  of  military  disci- 
pline. Yet  the  main  defect  of  such  an  ideal  is  not 
precisely  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  gospel,  but  that 
it  is  dangerous,  and  impossible  to  realize. 

The  gospel  of  Jesus  was  neither  wholly  indi- 
vidualistic in  the  Protestant  sense,  nor  wholly 
ecclesiastical  in  the  Catholic  sense.  It  addressed 
itself  to  the  mass  of  mankind  in  order  to  establish 
the  free  society  of  the  elect;  is  it  possible  to 
form  an  idea  of  the  development  of  personality 
or  of  the  form  of  government  in  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  ?  It  is  the  life  and  persistence  of  the  gospel, 
which  have  made  of  it  a  permanent  principle  of 
religious  and  moral  education,  and  a  spiritual 
society  where  the  principle  is  put  in  force.     The 


THE    CHURCH  177 

principle  has  no  hold  without  the  society,  nor  the 
society  without  the  principle.  Protestantism  and 
Herr  Harnack  wish  to  keep  only  the  principle.  It 
is  a  conception  which  lacks  consistence  and  reality. 
Catholicism  stands  for  both  principle  and  society. 
Historical  circumstances  have  made  the  social 
organization  seem  to  compromise  the  principle 
more  or  less,  even  in  some  sort  to  appear  to  threaten 
it  still.  But  it  is  the  condition  of  all  that  lives  in 
this  world  to  be  sul)ject  to  imperfection.  What- 
ever reservations  the  historian  may  make  in  details 
as  to  the  way  in  which  the  action  of  the  Churcli 
is  or  has  been  exercised,  he  cannot  deny  that 
Catholicism  has  been,  and  is  still,  the  service  of  the 
gospel,  continued  since  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

The  power  of  adaptation  recognized  in  the  Roman 
Church  is  its  best  title  to  the  admiration  of  the 
impartial  observer.  It  does  not  follow  that  the 
Church  alters  either  the  Gospel  or  tradition,  but 
that  she  knows  how  to  understand  the  needs  of 
the  time.  It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that 
the  gospel  was  not  an  absolute,  abstract  doctrine, 
directly  applicable  at  all  times  and  to  all  men  by 
its  essential  virtue.  It  was  a  living  faith,  linked 
everywhere  to  the  time  and  the  circumstances  that 
witnessed  its  birth.  In  order  to  preserve  this  faith 
in   the  world,  a  work  of  adaptation  has  been,  ami 

N 


178       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

will  be,  perpetually  necessary.  Though  the 
Catholic  Church  has  adapted,  and  still  adapts,  the 
faith,  though  she  adapt  herself  continually  to 
the  needs  of  new  ages,  that  is  no  proof  that  she 
forgets  the  gospel  or  despises  her  own  tradition, 
but  that  she  wishes  to  display  the  value  of  both, 
and  has  confidence  that  they  are  flexible  and  capa- 
ble of  further  perfection. 

The  "  reasons  of  superior  order,"  ^  which,  accord- 
ing to  Herr  Harnack,  caused  orthodoxy  to  be 
corrected,  ancient  dogmas  to  be  interpreted,  new 
dogmas  to  be  produced,  new  practices  and  de- 
votions to  be  authorized,  are  not  to  be  sought  in 
the  caprices  or  calculations  of  an  arbitrary  or 
egoistic  despotism.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
external  circumstances  surrounding  any  particular 
fact,  all  this  development  proceeds  from  the 
innermost  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  decisions  of 
authority  only  sanction,  so  to  speak,  or  consecrate, 
the  movement  that  arises  from  general  thought 
and  piety.  If  it  does  not  please  the  Catholic 
Church  to  bury  herself,  immovably,  in  the  contem- 
plation of  traditional  formulas,  if  she  scrutinizes 
and  explains  them,  it  is  because  she  employs 
activity  and  intelligence  in  the  faith.  If  she 
modifies  her  discipline  and  modes  of  action,  it  is 

1  Page  155. 


THE   CHURCH  179 

because  she  wishes  to  act,  seeiiiLT  tliat  she  lives. 
As  the  CI  lurch  she  has  a  collective  life  whicli,  not- 
withstanding partial  faihires,  is  the  universal  lite 
of  the  gospel.  She  is  not  content  to  make  only 
Christians,  she  tends  to  create  a  Christian  world 
state.  It  is  easy  enough  to  understand  that 
individualist  theologians  have  no  sense  of  this 
collective  and  continuous  life  of  the  gospel  in  the 
Church,  and  do  not  always  see  it  even  when  they 
look  at  it.  Its  reality  is  none  the  less  definite, 
and  its  variety  does  not  prove  that  the  "  essence 
of  Christianity  "  is,  as  it  were,  hidden  and  stifled 
there  under  an  accumulation  of  foreign  material, 
but  that  this  essence  dwells  in  it  perpetually  in 
action,  under  all  the  forms  that  display  its  abundant 
fruitfulness. 


SECTION  V 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOGMA 

INTRODUCTION 

Past  centuries  regarded  dogma  as  the  expression 
and  the  rampart  of  the  faith.  It  was  believed  to 
be  immutable,  altliough  men  were  never  weary  of 
perfecting  its  formulas.  Herr  Harnack  also  teaches 
the  immutability  of  dogma,  but  he  finds  but  one 
dogma  in  the  gospel,  and  the  work  of  Christian 
thought  since  St.  Paul  is  thus  condemned  totally, 
since  its  object,  in  the  main,  is  other  than  the 
paternal  goodness  of  God.  The  time-honoured 
effort  to  define  the  truth  of  the  gospel  is  there- 
fore to  be  held  entirely  vain,  foreign  even  to  the 
gospel  it  wishes  to  interpret.  It  is  a  fact,  that 
the  development  of  dogma  is  not  in  the  gospel, 
and  could  not  be  there.  But  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  dogma  does  not  proceed  from  the  gospel, 
and  that  the  gospel  has  not  lived  and  lives  still 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  i8i 

in  the  dogma  as  well  as  in  the  Churcli.  Even  the 
teaching  and  the  appearance  of  Jesus  have  had 
perforce  to  be  interpreted ;  the  whole  question  is 
to  know  if  the  commentary  is  homogeneous  with 
the  text  or  heterogeneous. 


CHAPTER  I 

Even  if  there  is  unwillingness  to  recognize  in  the 
gospel  the  first  lineaments  of  Christology,  they 
must  be  admitted  to  be  present  in  St.  Paul.  The 
apostle,  who  rendered  the  Christian  religion  the 
eminent  service  of  detaching  it  from  Judaism, 
who  presented  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  fact 
accomplished  in  the  Redemption  through  Christ, 
who  conceived  the  gospel  as  the  Spirit  of  the 
Law,  also  laid  the  foundations  of  Christian  dogma. 
There  was,  we  are  told,  a  latent  danger  in  the 
conception  of  an  "  objective  redemption,"  because 
of  the  temptation  to  separate  it  from  the  inner 
renewal  of  the  soul.  Men  might  be  led  also  to 
count  among  the  conditions  of  salvation  an  exact 
knowledge  of  the  Saviour  and  of  His  work.  Did 
not  Paul  himself  attribute  a  celestial  nature  to 
Christ,  and  notwithstanding  the  freedom  of  his 
attitude  with  regard  to  the  Law,  did  he  not  retain 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  source  of  truth  ?      If  he 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  1S3 

formulated  no  dogma,  he  set  the  Church  on  the 
slope  of  dogmatic  development.^ 

However,  according  to  Herr  Harnack,  this 
development  is,  properly  speaking,  (I reek,  and 
the  direct  influence  of  Greek  thouglit  on  Clnistian 
makes  itself  felt  about  the  year  lUO.  John,  it 
is  true,  had  written  that  Jesus  was  the  "  Lo^os." 
but  "  he  had  not  made  this  proposition  the  basis 
of  all  speculation  concerning  Christ."  ^  After  him 
came  the  learned  men  who  taught  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  corporeal  appearance  of  the  Logos, 
and  this  idea  replaced  the  unintelligible  notion  of 
the  Messiah.  "  It  gave  a  metaphysical  meaning 
to  a  historic  fact;  it  introduced  into  cosmology, 
and  into  the  philosophy  of  religion,  a  personality 
that  had  appeared  in  time  and  space."  ^  This 
identification  brought  the  Greek  thinkers  to 
Christianity.  But  the  gnostic  crisis  forced  the 
Church  to  trace  the  limits  of  speculation  that 
could  be  called  Christian.  There,  strictly  speak- 
ing, begins  dogma,  and  with  it  tlie  menace  it 
brings  for  religious  liberty.  "  No  one  may  feel 
or  believe  himself  a  Christian,  tliat  is,  a  cliild  of 
God,  unless  he  has  first  submitted  his  religious 
experience  and  knowledge  to  the  control  of  the 
ecclesiastical  confession.  .  .  .  lEe  will  never  attain 
1  Page  115.  «  Fage  127.  3  Tago  128. 


i84      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

his  spiritual  majority,  since  he  must  remain  in 
dependence  on  dogma,  on  the  priest,  on  ritual,  and 
on  the  Book."  ^ 

On  this  plane,  continues  our  author,  tradi- 
tionalism, orthodoxy,  and  intellectualism  proceed 
together.  The  gospel  has  become  "  a  great 
cosmo- theological  philosophy,  wherein  enter  all 
imaginable  things."  Men  are  persuaded  that 
"  Christianity,  being  absolute  religion,  must  be 
able  to  reply  to  all  questions  of  metaphysics, 
cosmology,  or  history."  Two  features,  however, 
separate  this  doctrine  from  Greek  philosophy, 
namely,  the  dogma  of  creation,  and  especially  the 
Christological  dogma.  The  great  factor  of  this 
dogma  was  a  special  conception  of  redemption 
which  came  into  prominence  in  the  third  century, 
namely,  that  the  salvation  achieved  by  Christ 
consists  in  the  deliverance  from  death,  and  at  the 
same  time  an  elevation  to  the  Divine  life,  a 
deification  of  man.  To  obtain  this  benefit  for 
humanity,  the  Kedeemer  Himself  must  be  God, 
and  become  man.  This  is  the  reason  that  Atha- 
nasius  fought  for  the  consubtantiality  of  the 
Word  and  the  Father,  as  though  all  Christianity 
were  at  stake.  For  the  same  reason,  the  idea  of 
a  simple  moral  union   between   the  divinity  and 

Page  131. 


THE    CHRISTIAN   DOGMA  185 

the  humanity  of  the  Saviour  could  not  be 
accepted.  The  dogmas  of  the  consubstautial 
Trinity,  and  of  the  God-man,  are  bound  up  with 
this  conception  of  the  Eedemption  and  fall  with 
it.  For  this  conception  is  not  Christian,  nor 
moral :  it  has  hardly  any  connection  with  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospel,  to  whom  its  formulas  do  not 
apply ;  it  leads  away  from  the  real  Christ,  Whose 
living  image  it  does  not  keep,  but  rather  presents 
Him  solely  in  the  guise  of  "  hypotheses  expressed 
in  theoretical  propositions."  ^ 

Herr  Harnack  regards  the  Augustinian  doctrine 
of  grace  rather  from  the  point  of  view  of  piety 
than  that  of  dogma.  "  The  piety  and  theology  of 
Augustine  formed  a  special  revival  of  the  Pauline 
experience  and  doctrines  of  sin  and  of  grace,  of 
wickedness  and  justification,  of  Divine  predestina- 
tion, and  of  the  defect  of  human  liberty."  "  Down 
to  our  own  day,  in  Catholicism,  inner  living 
piety  and  the  manner  of  expressing  it  have 
remained  essentially  Augustinian."  How  wise  is 
the  theologian  to  note  this  contrast  between  the 
most  individual  piety  and  the  Church  of  law  and 
Imperialism  1  All  Catholic  reformers  have  been 
Augustinians.  "It  is  true  that  the  Church  has 
joined  to  her  dogma  of  grace,  conceived  essentiully 
1  Pages  142-U7. 


1 86      THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   CHURCH 

as  Augustine  conceived  it,  a  practice  of  confession 
which  threatens  to  make  the  dogma  completely 
valueless.  But  however  wide  she  makes  her 
boundaries,  so  as  to  include  all  who  do  not  rebel 
against  her,  she  not  only  supports  those  who  think 
with  Augustine  of  sin  and  of  grace,  but  she 
desires  that  every  one,  as  far  as  possible,  should 
feel  as  strongly  as  he  did  the  gravity  of  sin  and 
the  bliss  of  belonging  to  Grod."  ^ 

Great  admirer  of  Luther  as  he  is,  Herr  Harnack 
holds  the  Protestant  Eeformation  to  have  been 
incomplete.  In  matters  of  dogma,  there  are  a 
crowd  of  problems  that  Luther  did  not  know, 
much  less  was  able  to  solve ;  ''  he  was,  in  conse- 
quence, unable  to  separate  the  kernel  from  the 
hush.  .  .  .  He  not  only  admits  in  the  gospel  the 
ancient  dogmas  of  the  Trinity  and  the  two  natures 
of  Christ,  ...  he  constructed  new  dogmas ;  but, 
generally  speaking,  did  not  know  how  to  draw  a 
clear  distinction  between  dogma  and  the  gospel. 
.  .  .  The  inevitable  consequence  was,  that  intel- 
lectualism  was  not  destroyed,  but  formed  a  new 
scholastic  dogma,  considered  essential  to  salvation, 
so  that  there  remained  two  classes  of  Christians, 
those  who  understood  the  doctrine,  and  those  who 
accejDted  it  from   those  who  understood  and  thus 

1  Pages  160-163. 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  187 

continued  spiritually  minors."  In  this  respect, 
Protestantism  threatens  to  become  an  inferior  type 
of  Catholicism.  Let  the  Evangelical  Churclies 
beware  of  becoming  Catholicized  !  If  they  would 
remain  truly  evangelical,  they  must  have  no 
orthodoxy.^ 

1  Pases  182-185. 


CHAPTER  II 

Christian  thought  at  the  commencement  was 
Jewish,  and  could  not  be  other  than  Jewish, 
although  evangelical  Christianity  contained  the 
germ  of  a  universal  religion.  The  first  change, 
the  most  decisive,  most  important,  most  rapid 
also,  perhaps,  it  ever  experienced,  was  that  which 
made  out  of  a  Jewish  movement,  founded  on 
the  idea  of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  a  religion 
acceptable  to  the  Greco-Eoman  world  and  to  hu- 
manity. However  rapid  it  was,  the  change  was 
effected  in  successive  stages :  St.  Paul,  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  St.  Justin,  St.  Irenaeus,  Origen,  mark  the 
steps  of  this  progression  in  the  evolution  of  ideas, 
and  the  adaptation  of  the  faith  to  the  conditions 
of  intellectual  culture  in  the  first  centuries  of 
our  era.  The  transformation  was  effected  in  spite 
of  the  traditional  and  conservative  tendency 
inherent  in  every  religion,  and  manifest  from 
the  beginning  in  Christianity.  The  obligation  of 
the  Mosaic  Law  was   abrogated   in  spite  of   the 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  189 

Judaizers  :  the  theory  of  the  Lo^i^os  triumphed  in 
spite  of  the  adversaries  of  the  Johannic  writings, 
to  whom  St.  Epiphanes  gave  the  name  of  Aloges  . 
the  theology  of  Origan  was  accepted,  with  some 
amendment,  by  those  who  contested  it.  Each  step 
of  the  doctrine,  taken  in  spite  of  resistance,  is 
achieved  by  some  sort  of  accommodation  with 
those  that  preceded  it.  The  thesis  of  St.  Paul  on 
the  law  of  servitude  and  the  gospel  of  liberty,  the 
Johannic  conception  of  Christ,  entered  into  the 
tradition  of  the  teaching  Church  under  condition 
of  adaptation  to  primitive  Christianity.  In  order 
to  assimilate  the  greater  part  of  Origen's  theology, 
the  Church  cut  up  his  system  into  fragments,  and 
even  condemned  certain  philosophic  hypotheses 
which  were  not  to  her  liking. 

In  a  sense,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Hellenization 
of  Christian  doctrine  dates  from  the  Apologist 
Fatliers,  because  they  were  the  first  to  present 
Christianity  as  a  philosophy,  and  because  they 
elaborated  the  theory  of  the  Logos,  which  was  not 
enunciated  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  a  speculation, 
but  as  a  series  of  assertions  of  laith  and  mystical 
pictures.  This  opinion  wuuUl  be  inexact  if  it  were 
held  to  involve,  as  Herr  Ifarnack  seems  to  tldiik, 
the  conclusion  that  the  idea  of  the  Logos,  or,  more 
exactly,  the  idea  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  does  not 


I90      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

dominate  entirely  the  Fourth  Gospel.  There  is 
not  a  single  verse  of  the  Gospel  of  John  written 
independently  of  this  influence.  But  the  con- 
ception of  the  Logos  enters,  so  to  speak,  into  a 
living  faith,  enlarges  the  formula  of  the  faith,  and 
changes  its  own  nature :  it  ceases  to  be  a  purely 
theoretical  conception  upon  which  are  founded 
speculations  of  the  same  order,  and  becomes 
Christian  by  serving  to  define  the  Christ :  it  is  a 
vital  theology,  mystical,  not  abstract,  in  no  way 
scholastic,  whilst  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers 
develops  the  cosmological  point  of  view  merely 
indicated  in  the  prologue  of  John. 

The  Pauline  theory  of  salvation  was  indis- 
pensable in  its  time,  if  Christianity  were  not  to 
remain  a  Jewish  sect  without  a  future.  The 
theory  of  the  Incarnate  Logos  was  also  necessary 
when  the  gospel  was  presented,  not  only  to  the 
proselytes  of  Judaism  in  the  Empire,  but  to  the 
whole  pagan  world,  and  to  every  one  who  had 
received  a  Hellenic  education.  The  learned  theo- 
logy of  Origen  was  the  synthesis  of  doctrine,  that 
could  make  Christianity  acceptable  to  the  most 
cultivated  minds.  It  was  the  bridge  between  the 
new  religion  and  the  science  of  antiquity.  The 
Greek  w^orld  would  never  have  admitted  the  neces- 
sity of  circumcision,  nor  have  become  converted  to 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  191 

the  Messiah  of  Israel,  but  it  could  and  did  become 
a  convert  to  the  God  Who  became  man,  to  the 
Incarnate  Word.  All  the  development  of  Trini- 
tarian and  Christological  dogma,  which,  according 
to  Herr  liarnack  and  other  critical  tlieologians, 
has  weighed  so  heavily  on  all  Christian  orthodoxies, 
binding  them  to  an  effete  doctrine  and  to  the 
science  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  long  since  passed  by 
modern  knowledge,  was,  in  the  beginning,  a  vital 
manifestation,  a  great  effort  of  faith  and  intelli- 
gence, which  enabled  the  Church  to  link  her  own 
tradition  to  the  science  of  the  age,  to  fortify  one 
by  the  other,  and  transform  both  into  a  learned 
theology  which  believed  it  contained  the  know- 
ledge of  the  world  and  the  knowledge  of  God. 
Philosophy  could  become  Christian  without  being 
obliged  to  deny  itself,  and  yet  Christianity  had 
not  ceased  to  be  a  religion,  the  religion  of  Christ. 
This  work  of  Christian  thouglit  must  not  be 
judged  as  a  scientific  achievement.  It  did  not 
pretend  to  be,  and  had  it  desired  to  be,  it  must  ])e 
confessed  its  method  would  have  led  to  failure. 
It  was  not  erudite  research  that  determined  its 
character  and  fixed  its  results,  but  the  instinct  of 
faith  in  souls  otherwise  saturated  witli  the  Greek 
spirit.  Further,  the  Hellenizatioii  of  Christianity 
was  not  anticipated  by  professional  philosophers. 


192      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

like  the  gnostic  doctors,  nor  desired  by  skilful 
politicians,  who  would  have  carefully  fostered 
every  chance  of  success  for  the  work  of  conver- 
sion, and  would  have  taken  pains  to  remove 
from  Christianity  every  sign  of  its  Jewish  origin, 
that  in  a  Greek  guise  it  might  penetrate  the 
pagan  world  more  easily.  The  cause  of  the  move- 
ment lay  deeper,  and,  so  to  speak,  was  more 
profoundly  necessitated.  The  development  of 
Christian  dogma  was  brought  about  by  the  state 
of  mind  and  culture  of  the  earliest  converts, 
who  were  Gentiles,  or  under  Gentile  influence. 
So  far  as  they  were  won  over  to  Jewish  beliefs, 
they  were  prepared  to  understand  and  appreciate 
primitive  Christianity,  and  to  this  extent  they 
became  attached  to  it.  So  far  as  they  were 
imbued  with  Greek  culture,  they  felt  the  need 
of  interpreting  their  new  faith  to  themselves. 
They  did  so,  the  more  promptly  and  the  more 
willingly,  because  some  explanation  was  essential 
to  any  one  who  wished  to  speak  of  Christianity 
to  pagans  ignorant  of  Judaism.  In  this  way, 
progressively,  but  beginning  at  a  very  early  date, 
the  Greek  interpretation  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Messiah  came  into  being  through  the 
spontaneous  effort  of  the  faith  to  define  itself, 
through  the  natural  exigencies  of  propagandism, 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  193 

and  thus  the  Christ,  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man, 
predestined  Saviour,  became  the  Word  made 
flesh,  the  Eevealer  of  God  to  Innnanity. 

All  the  development  of  Christological  doctrine 
up  to  the  end  of  the  third  century  comes  from 
this  double  impulse,  which  at  the  same  time  accel- 
erates its  progress.  It  is  moderated  and  controlled 
by  the  principle  of  tradition  v^^hich  compels  it  to 
remain  always  in  close  relation  with  its  point  of 
departure,  the  monotheistic  conception,  and  tlie 
real  humanity  and  historical  personality  of  Jesus. 
Israelitish  monotlieism  was  a  doctrine  nmch 
more  religious  and  moral  than  philosophic  ;  to  it 
is  adapted  the  metaphysics  of  Plato  and  Philo, 
without  which,  faith  in  tlie  one  God  would  have 
hardly  had  any  meaning  for  the  Greeks,  much 
more  "  intellectual "  than  religious.  In  the 
same  way,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  Incarna- 
tion of  the  Word  was  the  only  conceivable  way 
of  translating  to  Greek  intelligence  the  idea 
of  the  Messiah.  God  does  not  cease  to  be 
One,  and  Jesus  remains  Christ ;  but  God  is 
triple  without  multiplication  of  Hinisclf,  Jesus 
is  God  witliout  ceasing  to  be  man,  and  the 
AVord  becomes  man  witliout  losing  its  single 
identity.  Each  step  of  dogma  marks  the  intro- 
duction of  Greek  philosopliy  into  ('liristitiniry,  jiml 

o 


194       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

a  compromise  between  this  philosophy  and  Chris- 
tian tradition. 

For  philosophy  was  not  introduced  into  the 
Faith  as  such,  nor  entirely,  but  only  in  so  far 
as  an  explanation  or  a  learned  formula  was  bor- 
rowed, or  rather  stolen,  from  it  to  give  value  to 
tradition.  The  apologists  may  speak  of  philo- 
sophy in  connection  with  Christianity,  and  Origen 
regard  theology  as  a  true  science,  a  gnosis  superior 
to  the  common  faith,  but  the  official  representa- 
tives of  the  Church  affect  to  know  nothing  but 
tradition,  and  do  not  acknowledge,  having  no 
consciousness  of  them,  the  loans  that  Christianity 
has  made  before  them,  and  is  making  still 
through  them,  from  Hellenic  wisdom.  Ortho- 
doxy is  nourished  by  Plato,  Philo,  and  Origen,  and 
condemns  them  all  more  or  less,  for  it  does  not 
always  draw  from  them  directly.  The  principle 
of  tradition,  a  religious,  moral,  and  social  prin- 
ciple, a  principle  of  government  rather  than  of 
science,  generally  wins  the  day  over  the  principle 
of  free  speculation,  which  is  that  of  philosophy, 
and  always  wins  at  decisive  moments.  It  is, 
therefore,  permissible  to  say  that  Christian 
theology  undertook  a  work  of  selection  from 
Greek  philosophy.  But  if  it  is  true,  in  a  sense, 
that  it  absorbed  philosophy,  seeing  that  it  took 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  195 

the  place  of  it,  after  assimilatiiiL,^  a  good  part  of 
its  elements,  it  is  certain  tliat  primitive  Christian 
tradition  was  never  exchanged  for  philosophy,  nor 
Greek  science  substituted  for  the  gospel,  nor 
Plato  taken  for  master  in  place  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  From  a  historical  point  of  view,  it  may 
be  maintained  that  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarna- 
tion are  Greek  dogmas,  since  they  are  unknown  to 
Judaism  and  Judaic  Christianity,  and  that  Greek 
philosophy,  which  helped  to  make  them,  also  aids 
in  their  comprehension.  None  the  less,  they  are 
not  scientific  dogmas  transported  from  Pagan 
philosophy  into  Christian  theology ;  they  are 
religious  dogmas,  which  owe  to  philosophy  only 
certain  theoretical  elements  and  their  formulas, 
not  the  spirit  which  penetrates  elements  and 
formulas,  nor  the  special  combination  of  concep- 
tions which  constitute  them.  The  evolution  of 
the  idea  of  the  Divine  life  in  the  Trinity  does  not 
proceed  from  Israelitish  monotheism  without  the 
influence  of  Hellenic  speculations,  but  the  main- 
tenance of  unity,  the  definition  of  the  three  terms 
of  the  Divine  life  are  dictated  by  Jewish  tradition 
and  Christian  experience.  In  the  conception  of 
the  Incarnation,  the  idea  of  the  Word  comes  in  mi 
Pliilo  as  much  as  from  the  l)ibl(',  l)ut  it  dors  not 
cease  to  be  partly   lUblical,  ami,  above  all,    it  is 


196      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

fixed,  made  concrete,  turned,  as  it  were,  from 
cosmology  towards  revelation,  directed  towards 
Christ  in  such  a  way  as  to  derive  an  original 
significance  in  its  relation  to  Him  and  to  the 
Christian  faith. 

It  is  not  astonishing  that  the  result  of  so  special 
a  labour  seems  to  lack  logic  and  rational  con- 
sistency. However,  it  is  found  that  this  defect, 
which  would  be  fatal  to  a  philosophic  system,  is, 
in  theology,  an  element  of  endurance  and  solidity. 
May  it  not  be  said  that  all  heresies  are  born  of 
deductions  followed  out  in  a  special  sense,  start- 
ing from  one  principle  of  tradition  or  of  science 
isolated  from  all  the  rest,  erected  into  absolute 
truth,  from  which,  as  a  result  of  reasoning,  con- 
clusions are  drawn  incompatible  with  the  general 
harmony  of  religion  and  traditional  teaching  ?  Or- 
thodoxy seems  to  follow  a  kind  of  politic  line, 
balanced  and  obstinately  conciliatory,  between  the 
extreme  conclusions  that  can  be  drawn  from  the 
data  it  preserves.  When  it  can  no  longer  perceive 
the  logical  agreement  of  the  assertions  it  seems  to 
set  one  against  the  other,  it  proclaims  the  mystery, 
and  does  not  purchase  unity  of  theory  by  the 
sacrifice  of  an  important  element  of  its  tradition. 
So  it  acted  in  the  case  of  the  Trinity,  when  the 
principle  of    the   consubstantiality   of  the  three 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  197 

Divine  Persons  finally  triumphed,  and  it  was  no 
longer  possible  to  oscillate  between  Modalisni, 
which  admitted  but  one  Person  manifested  in  three 
works,  creation,  redemption,  sanctificati(jn,  and 
Subordinationisni,  which  attributed  the  three  works 
to  three  unequal  Persons.  So  also  it  acted  in  the 
case  of  the  Incarnation,  when  the  dual  nature  was 
definitely  affirmed  in  the  one  Person,  and  when 
it  was  necessary  to  take  a  stand  simultaneously 
against  Nestorianism  and  Monophysism.  Christian 
tradition  refused,  more  or  less  consciously,  to  limit 
the  real  nature  of  religious  things  by  the  rational 
nature  of  our  conceptions  ;  its  aim  was  rather  to 
render  to  the  eternal  truth  the  only  homage  that 
is  of  value,  by  holding  it  always  higher  than  our 
intelligence,  affirmations  which  seem  contradictory 
being,  perhaps,  compatible  at  the  limit  of  infinity. 
There  is  but  one  eternal  God,  and  Jesus  is  God — 
that  is  the  theological  dogma.  The  salvation  of 
man  is  entirely  in  the  hand  of  God,  and  man  is 
free  to  save  himself,  or  not — that  is  the  dogma  of 
grace.  The  Church  has  authority  over  men,  and 
the  Christian  is  only  responsible  to  God — that  is 
ecclesiastical  dogma.  Abstract  logic  would 
demand  that  throughout  one  or  other  of  these 
strangely  linked  projHJsitions  should  be  sacriliced. 
But    attentive    observation    shows    that   such   a 


198       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

course  would  compromise  tlie  living  equilibrium 
of  religion. 

The  dogmas  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation 
are  associated  with  an  idea  of  Eedemption  in- 
fluenced by  Hellenism;  but  neither  is  the  idea 
purely  Hellenic,  nor  is  its  relation  with  the  dogmas 
so  close  that  they  absolutely  depend  on  it.  If 
Herr  Harnack's  judgment  is  that  the  gospel  does 
not,  by  Eedemption,  intend  to  signify  exemption 
from  death,  it  is  because  he  began  by  considering 
eternal  life  to  be  the  actual  possession  of  God 
through  faith  in  His  mercy.  But  we  have  seen 
that  this  hypothesis  is  founded  on  an  interpretation 
of  gospel  teaching,  which  is  of  very  doubtful 
value.  Eternal  life,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  is 
not  the  possession  of  God  by  man  through  faith, 
but  the  possession  of  the  kingdom  in  the  life  to 
come,  the  life  that  is  unending.  Thus  the  im- 
mortality guaranteed  to  those  who  will  see  the 
great  advent,  and  those  who  will  rise  from  the  dead 
to  partake  in  it,  is  an  element  in  the  gospel,  and 
the  necessary  and  explicitly  formulated  condition 
of  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  gift 
of  immortality  is  not  yet  conceived  as  a  ransom- 
ing, a  restoration  of  humanity ;  it  constitutes  the 
recompense  promised  to  the  righteous.  The  re- 
conciliation of  sinners  in  the  parables  of  mercy  is 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  199 

not  represented  as  a  redemption.  God  jtardons 
tlie  repentant  sinner  wlio  thus  acquires  a  title  to 
eternal  life. 

But  St.  Paul  already  sets  forth  Christian  ri«rht- 
eousness  and  blessed  immortality  as  an  effect  of 
the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  "  lieavenly  m.iu  " 
Christ,  Who  restored  to  humanity  the  gift  it  lost 
by  the  fault  of  our  first  parent,  the  **  earthly  man,"  ^ 
The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  makes  little  of 
the  idea  of  propitiation  ;  but  he  associates  the  idea 
of  life  in  God  with  that  of  life  in  the  kin«'dom. 
and  thus  conceives  the  eternal  life  both  as  to  come 
and  as  already  present.  This  life  is  a  deification 
of  man  ;  for  if  the  deification  of  Jesus  consisted  in 
the  full  communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  which 
was  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word,  that  of  man  is 
realized  by  the  partial  communication  which  is 
made  of  the  same  Spirit  to  believers,  united  to 
God  in  Christ,  as  Christ  Himself  is  united  to  His 
Father. 

The  dogmatic  theory  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church  is,  therefore,  already  present  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  reasoning  of  Athanasius, 
and  the  other  doctors,  only  gave  it  the  rigour 
of  a  system.  John  had  said  that  man  participates 
in  the  Divine  life  and  triumphs  over  dc;ith  by 
*  1  Cor.  XV.  35-57 


200       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  gift  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  which  Christ,  In- 
carnate God,  obtains  for  liim.  The  defenders  of 
consubstantiality  said  that  Christ  could  not  thus 
deify  man,  unless  He  Himself  were  God.  The 
reasoning  of  the  ecclesiastical  theologians  is 
founded  on  the  assertion  of  the  evangelist,  and 
all  the  Greek  development  is  linked  to  one 
element  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  wherein  the 
Messiah  was  already  the  messenger  and  the 
agent  of  immortality.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  does  not  rest  only  on 
the  idea  of  the  deification  of  man  by  Christ,  but 
on  the  assertion  of  faith  which  first  presented 
Jesus  as  Christ  and  Lord,  hallowed  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  later,  as  identified  with  the  Divine 
Word,  and  on  the  assertion  which,  before  all 
doctrinal  systematization,  conceived  the  Spirit 
which  acted  in  the  Church  as  a  Divine  Per- 
sonality, dependent  and  distinct  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  The  Apostles'  Creed  and  the 
formula  of  baptism  are  of  a  date  anterior 
to  the  third  century,  and  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  they  contain  the  essential  elements  of  the 
dogma  of  the  Trinity.  The  systematic  definition 
of  the  dogma  is  in  relation  to  the  systematic 
definition  of  liedemption,  but  the  ideas  which  sup- 
ported  these  definitions  existed   before   them  in 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  201 

Christian  belief,  and  iheir  evolution  lias  its  startin.^' 
point  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  and  apostolic  tradition. 
The  development  of  the  dogma  of  grace,  and 
that  of  the  dogma  of  the  Churcli,  has  been  effected 
under  the  same  conditions  as  that  of  the  theo- 
logical dogma.  The  West  has  never  liad  inncli 
liking  for  the  speculations  wherein  the  genius  of 
the  ancient  East  has  always  delighted  to  wander, 
and  frequently  to  go  astray.  Her  religion,  instead 
of  being  a  matter  of  transcendental  metapliysics, 
or  of  cosmological  epic,  was  a  wellspring  of  inner 
piety  and  an  instrument  of  social  order.  At 
Eome,  and  in  the  Latin  countries,  religion  is 
readily  conceived  as  a  discipline  and  a  social 
duty.  For  the  Germanic  races,  it  is  a  principle  of 
inner  life,  the  poem  of  the  sonl,  where  nothing 
is  really  visible  but  "  God  and  the  soul,  the  soul 
and  its  God."  The  spirit  of  government,  inherent 
in  Eome,  contributed  to  the  ecclesiastical  de- 
velopment, and  prepared  for  modern  times  the 
development  of  the  dogma  of  the  Church.  The 
spirit  of  piety  was  not  lacking  in  any  fraction 
of  ancient  Christianity;  nevertheless,  it  gave  rise 
to  no  special  development  peculiar  to  the  Latin 
Church,  except  through  St.  Augustine  and  the 
influence  of  Augustinism,  an  influence  that  must 
not  be  altogether  confused  with   the    credit    the 


202      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Augustinian  system  of  grace  has  enjoyed  among 
theologians.  As  Herr  Harnack  has  said,  the 
history  of  Western  Christianity,  since  the  fifth 
century,  is  made  up  of  the  relations  that  have 
existed  between  two  factors ;  the  spirit  of  piety, 
which  tends  to  make  religion  a  personal  matter, 
and  the  spirit  of  government,  which  tends  to 
make  it  an  official  thing,  regulated  throughout 
by  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  Eoman  Pontiff. 
Eeligious  individualism  is  the  extreme  limit  of 
the  first  tendency,  ecclesiastical  absolutism  of  the 
second.  From  their  equilibrium,  the  life  of 
Christianity  results,  a  life  that  will  vanish 
promptly  enough  on  the  day  when  one  of  these 
tendencies  fails  to  counterbalance  the  other,  for 
Protestantism  only  exists  as  religion  by  means  of 
fragments  of  hierarchy  and  traditional  organiza- 
tion, and  Catholicism  derives  its  vitality  at  least 
as  much  from  the  intimate  ardour  of  piety  as 
from  the  solidity  of  the  hierarchical  bond,  or  the 
riojour  of  administrative  centralization. 

St.  Augustine  contemplated  the  Christian  idea 
from  the  point  of  view  of  individual  salvation,  an 
abstraction  made  from  the  cosmolo^ical  s^nosis. 
He  does  not  regard  salvation  alone  as  a  final  end, 
but  first  of  all  in  the  guise  of  that  spiritual 
regeneration,  which  constitutes  its  reality  for  the 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  203 

present  life.  The  history  of  Christianity  becomes 
a  psychological  drama:  Adam  and  Eve  were 
righteous  and  holy;  they  had  within  them  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  power  to  do  good,  but  never- 
theless, in  such  a  way,  that  in  the  trial  of  the 
forbidden  fruit,  they  had  the  faculty  of  obedience 
witliout  the  overwhelming  compulsion  to  fulfil 
their  duty ;  they  failed,  the  attraction  of  the  flesh 
gaining  the  day  over  the  spiritual  force  of  grace, 
and  so  destroying  the  harmony  God  had  estab- 
lished in  His  chosen  creation ;  henceforth,  the 
lust  of  the  flesh,  that  is,  sin,  in  a  permanent  and 
abiding  form,  reigns  in  man ;  all  the  sons  of 
Adam  are  born  sinners,  because  they  are  born 
of  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  and  bear  within  them  the 
deadly  principle  which  brought  them  to  birth; 
but  as  the  evil,  so  is  the  remedy ;  the  grace 
deserved  through  Jesus,  which  is  essentially  the 
gift  of  faith  and  love  of  God,  is  an  attraction  of 
another  order,  all-powerful  and  Divine,  by  which 
man  acquires  the  liberty  of  righteousness,  by 
becoming  capable  of  resisting  effectively  the 
deadly  attraction  of  lust ;  as  long  as  he  lives 
on  the  earth,  the  lust  of  the  flesh  is  not  plucked 
up  by  the  root,  it  is  simply  combated  and  over- 
tlirown  by  the  superior  attraction  of  the  grace 
of  God. 


204       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

The  doctrine   of  grace  is   no   more  Roman  in 
origin  than  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Incarnate  Word. 
The  African  Church  was  Roman  neither  in  race 
nor  in  spirit,  notwithstanding  its  close  and  per- 
manent rehations  with  the  community  of  Rome. 
The  sens^e  of  the  personal  dignity  of  the  Christian 
and  of  Christian  holiness  was  preserved  there  very 
vividly  ;  although  they  had  not  followed  Tertullian 
into  the  chimerical  realm  of  Montanism,  they  had, 
so  to  speak,  the  worship  of  the  Spirit  and  of  the 
sacraments  that  confer  it :   for  a  long  time  they 
refused  to  accept  the  baptism  of  repentant  heretics, 
and  a  formidable  schism,  that  of  the  Donatists, 
arose  from  the  same  cause  as  the  error  of  Cyprian 
and  tlie  rebaptizers  ;  in  the  same  way  that  baptism 
given  by  a  heretic  could  not  be  valid,  because  the 
heretic,   not   having  the   Holy  Spirit,  could   not 
communicate  it,  so  the  ordinations  made  by  the 
"  Traditors,"  those  who,  during  the  persecutions 
of  Diocletian,  had  been  so  weak  as  to  hand  over  the 
sacred  treasure  of  the   Scriptures  to  the  Roman 
authorities,    were    necessarily    void,    because    a 
"  Traditor "  bishop  is  deprived  of  his  grace,  and 
cannot  confer  what  he  no  longer  possesses.    It  is  in 
such  an  atmosphere  that  the  dogma  of  efficacious 
grace  was  sure  to  be  born.     Alexandria  might  be 
interested  in  the  Divine  Essence,  Antioch  in  the 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  205 

theandric  constitution  of  Christ,  Eome  in  rules 
of  ecclesiastical  government,  but  Carthage  and 
the  Church  of  Africa  were  concerned  with  the 
holiness  of  the  Church  in  its  chiefs  and  in  its 
members.  This  way  of  understanding  religion 
was  defined  by  Augustine  in  a  theory,  which  had 
the  advantage  over  the  principle  that  guided 
Cyprian  and  the  Donatists,  that  it  did  not 
disturb  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  since  it 
accepted  from  common  tradition  both  the 
theological  dogma  and  the  form  of  ecclesiastical 
institution. 

By  presenting  to  each  believer  a  scheme  of 
moral  redemption  founded  on  the  profound  senti- 
ment of  human  weakness,  and  the  mysterious 
efficacy  of  grace,  through  faith,  hope,  and  love, 
the  dogma  of  grace  was  found  to  be  absolutely 
fitted  to  the  spirit  of  the  new  nations  the  Church 
had  soon  to  convert,  who  are  now  the  Christian 
nations,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  of  Western 
Europe.  These  nations  have  taken  religion  as 
a  spiritual  medicine,  the  condition  and  fruit  of 
an  inner  struggle,  the  second  birth  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  his  progress  towards  moral  perfection, 
liberty  above  all  the  freedom  of  social  order,  the 
principle  of  righteous  action  and  of  rigliteous  life, 
and  the  deification  of  man,  no  longer  only  in  the 


2o6      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

radiance  of  God,  but  by  the  life  of  God  in  himself 
and  by  the  activity  of  love. 

This  dogma,  psychological  and  human,  some- 
what modified  by  the  interpretations  of  a  later 
tradition,  is  bound  up  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
neither  more  nor  less  than  the  theological  dogma. 
It  proceeds  directly  from  St.  Paul.  The  apostle 
considered  salvation  not  only  as  a  cosmological 
function,  but  first  of  all  as  an  interest  of  humanity 
in  general  and  of  the  individual  in  particular ; 
from  his  meditations  on  the  relations  of  the  Law 
and  the  Gospel,  on  Sin  and  Eedemption,  was 
derived  his  theory  of  salvation,  through  faith  in 
Jesus  and  the  grace  of  God  alone,  without  the 
works  of  the  Law.  Man,  since  Adam,  is  inclined 
to  sin — in  his  natural  state,  a  sinner:  far  from 
serving  him,  the  Law,  by  multiplying  precepts, 
multiplies  transgressions ;  it  is  only  an  instruction, 
a  guide;  through  the  Law  has  no  one  ever  been 
saved. 

Faith  is  the  true  remedy  for  sin ;  but  faith  is 
founded  only  on  Jesus  Christ,  Who  delivers  men 
from  the  Law,  from  sin,  and  from  death,  having 
left  this  triple  burden  buried  in  the  sepulchre 
whence  He  ascended,  free  and  glorious ;  the 
"heavenly  man"  made  flesh  has  redeemed  all 
sinners,  the  descendants  of  the  "  earthly  man  :  " 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  207 

He  has  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh,  He  has 
crucified  it;  unjustly  smitten  in  virtue  of  the 
Law,  He  has  broken  the  Law  in  pieces :  dying  of 
His  own  free  will,  He  has  destroyed  the  empire 
of  death ;  thus  He  remains  a  principle  of  justice 
and  eternal  life  for  those  who  believe  in  Him.^ 
St.  Augustine  disentangled  these  ideas  from  their 
connection  with  the  question  of  the  Law,  which 
was  an  essential  matter  for  Paul,  but  had  no 
significance  for  the  Church;  drew  from  them  a 
logical  system ;  made  precise  the  conception  of 
original  sin  and  that  of  personal  sin,  of  grace  and 
of  nature,  and  interpreted  as  a  theologian  the 
institutions  and  subtle  polemic  of  the  apostle. 

As  the  reformers  made  much  of  the  Pauline 
and  Augustinian  theory  of  justification,  and  as 
liberal  theologians  readily  find  therein  their  con- 
ception of  salvation  or  of  eternal  life  acquired 
through  faith  in  God  the  Father,  it  is  seldom 
insisted  that  this  dogma  of  grace  is  no  more 
expressly  taught  in  the  gospel  than  the  Christo- 
logical  dogma.  But  the  teaching  of  the  Saviour 
would  be  searched  in  vain  for  a  doctrine  of  sin 
and  of  justification.  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
promised  to  him  that  repents,  in  such  a  way  tliat 
the  gain  of  eternal  life  seems  subordinated  to  two 
1  Cf.  Rom.  V. 


2o8      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

conditions ;  one  implicit,  namely,  faith  in  the 
Divine  mercy  and  in  the  coming  kingdom,  and 
one  explicit,  namely,  repentance ;  otherwise  the 
conditions  of  salvation,  which  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
offered  only  to  Jews,  are  not  discussed.  It  is  easy 
to  see  all  that  St.  Paul  adds  to  the  gospel,  where 
are  to  be  found  only  ordinary  ideas  of  sin,  pardon, 
and  eternal  life,  without  any  theory. 

Just  as  truly  as  the  Christological  dogma,  the 
dogma  of  grace  is  an  interpretation  of  the  salva- 
tion of  the  Messiah  and  of  the  theology  of  the 
heavenly  kingdom,  and  this  interpretation  also 
was  made  necessary  by  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  gospel  was  perpetuated,  and  by  the  problems 
presented  by  the  conversion  of  pagans,  problems 
which  had  to  be  resolved  by  drawing  inspiration 
much  more  from  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  than  from 
His  formal  declarations. 

It  is  since  the  Eeformation  especially,  that  the 
conception  even  of  the  Church  has  become  a 
matter  of  dogmatic  development.  Previously  the 
Church  grew  without  much  speculation  on  the 
nature  of  her  progress.  Protestantism  first  threw 
doubt  on  her  authority,  thus  throwing  doubt  on 
the  Church  herself.  Now,  the  main  point  at  issue 
between  Catholic  theologians  and  those  of  the 
reformed    communions   may   be    stated   in    these 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  209 

simple  terms :  Is  the  gospel  of  Jesus  in  principle 
individualist  or  collectivist  ?  The  question  whieh 
seemed  of  prime  importance  to  past  centuries, 
namely,  if  the  object  of  faitk  is  to  be  determined 
by  Scripture  alone  or  by  tradition  with  Scripture, 
retires  into  the  background ;  for,  in  spite  of 
appearances,  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  knowing 
if  Scripture  contains  the  plenitude  of  the  revela- 
tion or  no,  but  whether  it  is  for  the  individual 
Christian  himself  to  build  up  his  own  faith 
and  all  his  religion  with  the  aid  of  Scripture, 
or  whether  Christian  faith  and  religion  ought  not 
to  be  and  are  not  rather  a  perpetual  and  universal 
work,  to  which  each  contributes  and  from  which 
each  derives  benefit. 

In  opposition  to  Protestantism  which  leads  the 
Christian  religion  logically  to  absolute  indivi- 
dualism, that  is,  to  indefinite  subdivision,  Catholic 
Christianity  has  kept  a  clearer  consciousness  of 
itself,  and  has  declared  itself  a  Divine  institution 
as  an  external  and  visible  society,  with  a  single 
chief  who  possesses  to  the  full,  powers  of  teaching, 
of  jurisdiction,  of  sanctification,  that  is  to  say, 
all  the  powers  that  are  in  the  Church,  powers 
which  earlier  centuries  placed  in  the  general 
episcopate  under  the  hegemony  of  the  Pope, 
without     specifying    whether     the     I*ope    alone 

P 


2IO      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

possessed  tliem  wholly.  The  definitions  of  the 
Vatican  are  to  some  extent  sprung  from  reality ; 
but  if  the  centralizing  tendency  that  led  to  it 
seems  to  have  reached  its  limit,  theological  re- 
flection has  not  yet  spoken  its  final  word  on  the 
subject.  It  is  possible  that  the  future  will  make 
observations  on  the  true  nature  and  object  of 
ecclesiastical  authority,  which  cannot  fail  to  react 
on  the  manner  and  conditions  of  its  exercise. 

Any  one  who  has  followed  the  progress  of 
Christian  thought  from  the  beginning  must  per- 
ceive that  neither  the  Christological  dogma  nor 
the  dogma  of  grace  nor  that  of  the  Church  is  to  be 
taken  for  a  summit  of  doctrine,  beyond  which  no 
prospect  opens  for  the  believer  or  can  ever  open 
except  the  dazzling  distance  of  infinite  mystery ; 
it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  these  dogmas  will 
remain  firmer  than  the  rock,  inaccessible  even  to 
accidental  change,  and  yet  intelligible  for  all  gene- 
rations, and  equally  applicable,  without  any  new 
translation  or  explanation,  to  all  states,  and  to 
every  advance  of  science,  life,  and  human  society. 
The  conceptions  that  the  Church  presents  as  re- 
vealed dogmas  are  not  truths  fallen  from  heaven, 
and  preserved  by  religious  tradition  in  the  precise 
form  in  which  they  first  appeared.  The  historian 
sees  in  them  the  interpretation  of  religious  facts, 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  211 

acquired  by  a  laborious  effort  of  theological 
thought.  Though  the  dogmas  may  be  Divine  iu 
origin  and  substance,  they  are  human  in  structure 
and  composition.  It  is  inconceivable  that  their 
future  should  not  correspond  to  their  past.  Eeason 
never  ceases  to  put  questions  to  faith,  and  tradi- 
tional formulas  are  submitted  to  a  constant  work 
of  interpretation  wherein  "  the  letter  that  killeth  " 
is  effectively  controlled  by  "  the  spirit  that  giveth 
life."  * 

»  2  Cor.  iii.  6. 


CHAPTEE   III 

It  is  only  by  starting  from  a  scholastic  conception, 
abstract  and  unreal,  of  revelation  and  of  dogma 
that  a  conclusion  is  reached  condemnatory  of  all 
the  fruit  of  Christian  reflection  upon  the  object  of 
Christianity.  It  is  clear  that  if  the  unchangeable 
essence  of  the  gospel  had  been  only  faith  in  God 
the  Father,  all  Christian  development  of  doctrine, 
as  well  as  of  ecclesiastical  organization  and  ritual, 
would  have  been  a  vast  aberration.  But  besides 
the  fact  that  the  gospel  is  not  to  be  summed  up 
in  such  a  belief,  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  statement  of  this  faith  could  remain  un- 
changeable, or  become  so  if  it  were  judged  expe- 
dient for  mankind  to  content  themselves  with  it. 
If  the  attention  of  the  first  believers  had  not 
been  directed  towards  the  Son  of  God,  it  would 
have  turned  to  the  Father  Himself,  and  become 
occupied  with  His  nature  and  relations  with  the 
world,  thus  leading  speculation  back  to  cosmology. 
Interest  would  have  been  roused  in  this  goodness. 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  213 

which  had  its  essential  significance  in  relation  to 
mankind,  its  historical  manifestations  would  have 
been  tentatively  defined,  or,  at  any  rate,  its  secret 
action  in  each  believing  soul,  a  process  leading 
thought  again  to  Christology  and  the  economy  of 
Divine  Grace.  Sooner  or  later  attention  would 
have  been  brought  to  bear  on  the  normal  con- 
ditions of  evangelization,  and  the  problem  of 
ecclesiulogy  would  have  arisen.  Doctrinal  Chris- 
tian development  was  inevitable,  therefore,  and  in 
principle,  legitimate ;  on  the  whole,  it  has  served 
the  cause  of  the  gospel,  which  could  not  exist  as  a 
pure  essence,  but  being  constantly  transformed  into 
living  doctrines  has  itself  lived  in  these  doctrines, 
whose  development  is  therefore  justified  in  fact.^ 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  the  Catholic  Church  does 
not  even  recognize  the  existence  of  this  develop- 
ment, and  condemns  the  very  idea  of  it.  Perhaps 
it  would  be  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  she  has 
never  had  consciousness  of  it,  and  that  she  has 
no  official  theory  concerning  the  philosophy  of 
her  own  history.  That  which  is  taught  by  Vincent 
de  Lerins,  modern  theologians  (except  Cardinal 
Newman)  and  the  Council  of  the  Vatican,  touch- 
ing the  development  of  dogma,  applies  in  reality 
to  the  definitely  intellectual  and  theological  phase 
^  Cf.  E.  Caird,  art.  cit.  p.  10. 


214      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

of  its  development,  not  to  the  first  budding  and 
formation  of  beliefs,  or  at  least  includes  in  an 
abstract  definition,  much  work  for  which  this 
definition  is  no  adequate  expression.  It  is  just 
the  idea  of  development  which  is  now  needed, 
not  to  be  created  all  at  once,  but  established  from 
a  better  knowledge  of  the  past.  The  acquisition 
of  this  new  dogma  will  have  no  different  effect  to 
that  of  the  old  ones.  These  latter  were  not  con- 
tained in  primitive  tradition,  like  a  conclusion  in 
the  premises  of  a  syllogism,  but  as  a  germ  in  a 
seed,  a  real  and  living  element,  which  must 
become  transformed  as  it  grows,  and  be  determined 
by  discussion  before  its  crystallization  into  a 
solemn  formula.  They  existed  as  more  or  less 
conscious  facts  or  beliefs,  before  they  were  the 
subject  of  learned  speculations  or  of  official 
judgments.  The  Christological  dogma  was,  before 
everything,  the  expression  of  what  Jesus  repre- 
sented from  the  beginning  to  Christian  conscious- 
ness; the  dogma  of  grace  was  the  expression  of 
the  Divine  work  accomplished  in  the  souls  that 
were  regenerated  through  the  gospel ;  the  ecclesio- 
logical  dogma  was  the  expression  of  the  per- 
manent position  of  the  Episcopate  and  the  Pope 
in  the  Church.  If  ever  a  dogmatic  conclusion  is 
formulated  on  the  subject  of  Christian  development 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  215 

it  will  almost  certainly  be  an  expression  of  the 
law  of  progress  which  has  governed  the  history 
of  Christianity  from  the  beginning.  Till  now, 
Catholic  theologians  have  been  especially  pre- 
occupied with  the  absolute  character  that  the 
dogma  derives  from  its  source,  the  Divine  revela- 
tion, and  critics  have  hardly  noticed  the  relative 
character  that  its  history  makes  manifest.  The 
efforts  of  a  healthy  theology  should  be  directed 
to  a  solution  of  the  difficulty,  presented  by  the 
unquestionable  authority  faith  demands  for  dogma, 
and  the  variability,  the  relativity,  the  critic  cannot 
fail  to  perceive  in  the  history  of  dogmas  and 
dogmatic  formulas. 

We  have  seen  how  the  whole  development  of 
Christian  doctrine  is  not  outside  the  faith,  but 
within  the  faith,  which  dominates  it  entirely. 
The  traditional  principle  and  the  religious  sense 
have  always  overcome  the  need  of  scientific  adapta- 
tion, and  have  saved  the  originality  of  Christianity. 
The  ancient  dogmas  have  their  root  in  the  preach- 
ing and  ministry  of  Christ,  and  in  the  experiences 
of  the  Church,  and  their  development  in  the 
history  of  Christianity  and  in  theological  thought : 
nothing  else  was  possible.  Further,  it  is  no  less 
natural  that  the  creeds  and  dogmatic  definitions 
should  be  related  to  the  state  of  general  human 


2i6      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

knowledge  in  the  time  and  under  the  ciiciimstances 
when  they  were  constituted.  It  follows  that  a 
considerable  change  in  the  state  of  knowledge 
might  render  necessary  a  new  interpretation  of 
old  formulas,  which,  conceived  in  another  intel- 
lectual atmosphere,  no  longer  say  what  is  neces- 
sary, or  no  longer  say  it  suitably.  In  such  a 
case,  a  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  the 
material  sense  of  the  formula,  tlie  external  image 
it  presents,  related  to  ideas  received  Irom  an- 
tiquity, and  its  proper  religious  and  Christian 
significance,  its  fundamental  idea,  which  can  be 
reconciled  with  new  views  of  the  constitution  of 
the  world  and  the  nature  of  things  in  general. 
The  Church  still  repeats  every  day  in  the  creed  of 
the  apostles,  "He  descended  into  Hell,  He  has 
ascended  to  Heaven."  These  propositions  have 
for  many  centuries  been  taken  literally.  Genera- 
tions of  Christians  have  followed  one  another 
believing  Hell,  the  abode  of  tlie  damned,  to  be 
beneath  their  feet,  and  Heaven,  the  abode  of  the 
elect,  above  their  heads.  Neither  learned  theology 
nor  even  popular  preaching  maintains  this  locali- 
zation to-day  :  and  no  one  any  longer  will  hold 
that  he  can  determine  the  place  of  the  soul  of 
Christ  in  the  interval  between  His  death  and  His 
resurrection,  nor  that  of  His  glorified  humanity 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  217 


since  His  ascension.  The  real  dogmatic  meaning 
of  these  sentences  remains  unaltered,  because  by 
them  is  always  taught  a  transitory  relation  of  the 
soul  of  Christ  with  the  just  under  the  ancient 
law,  and  the  glorification  of  His  risen  humanity. 
May  we  not  say,  looking  at  the  transformation 
that  the  apparent  sense  of  the  formulas  has  under- 
gone, that  the  theology  of  the  future  will  again 
construct  a  more  spiritual  idea  of  their  content  ? 
It  is  quite  true  that  the  Church  corrects  its  dog- 
matic formulas  by  means  of  distinctions,  sometimes 
rather  subtle.  But,  in  so  acting,  she  continues  in 
tlie  way  she  has  walked  from  the  beginning,  she 
adapts  the  gospel  to  the  constantly  changing 
condition  of  human  life  and  intelligence. 

It  is  not  indispensable  to  the  authority  of  be- 
lief that  it  should  be  rigorously  unchangeable  in 
its  intellectual  form  and  its  verbal  expression. 
Such  immutability  is  not  compatible  with  the 
nature  of  human  intelligence.  Oiu"  most  certain 
knowledijje  in  the  domains  of  nature  and  of  science 
is  always  in  movement,  always  relative,  always 
perfectible.  It  is  not  with  the  elements  of  human 
thought  that  an  everlasting  edifice  can  be  built. 
Truth  alone  is  unchangeable,  but  not  its  image  in 
our  minds.  Faith  addresses  itself  to  the  un- 
changeable   truth,  through  a  formula,  necessarily 


2i8      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

inadequate,  capable  of  improvement,  consequently 
of  change.  When  Jesus  said,  in  all  solemnity, 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  be  some  of  them 
that  stand  here,  which  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of 
death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  His 
kingdom,"  ^  He  put  forward  a  dogmatic  proposi- 
tion much  less  absolute  in  reality  than  in  appear- 
ance ;  He  demanded  faith  in  the  approaching 
kino-dom,  but  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  and  of  its 
proximity  were  two  very  simple  symbols  of  very 
complex  matters,  and  even  those  who  were  the 
first  to  believe  must  have  attached  their  minds 
more  to  the  spirit  than  to  the  letter  of  this  state- 
ment, to  find  it  always  true.  The  dogmatic 
formulas  stand  in  the  same  position  as  the  words 
of  the  Saviour,  and  it  is  no  demonstration  that 
they  are  objectless,  to  discover  at  any  given 
moment  that  the  reality  has  passed  them  by. 

The  singularly  defective  logic  which  seems  to 
preside  over  the  formation  and  growth  of  dogmas, 
is  in  no  way  difficult  to  understand,  and  may 
even  be  called  normal,  by  the  historian  who  con- 
siders the  proofs  of  faith  as  expressions  of  its 
vitality  rather  than  the  real  reasons  of  its  origin. 

Nothing  is  more  precarious,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  ordinary  rules  of  human  reasoning 
I  Matt.  xvi.  28. 


THE   CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  219 

and  textual  criticism,  than  certain  arguments  by 
which  the  gospel  is  founded  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  Catholic  Christianity  on  the  whole 
Bible.  The  work  of  traditional  exegesis,  from 
whence  dogma  may  be  said  to  proceed  by  a  slow 
and  continuous  elaboration,  seems  in  permanent 
contradiction  with  the  principles  of  a  purely 
rational  and  historical  interpretation.  It  is  always 
taken  for  granted  that  the  old  Biblical  texts  and 
the  witness  of  tradition  must  contain  the  truth  of 
the  present  time,  and  the  truth  is  found  there 
because  it  is  put  there.  Catholic  theologians  had 
a  right  appreciation  of  this  state  of  affairs  when 
they  laid  down  the  rule  that  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church  applies  to  dogmatic  definitions,  not  to 
the  preambles  that  stated  the  reasons  of  them, 
even  when  the  preambles  were  expressed  in  the 
official  declarations  of  Councils  and  Popes.  A 
distinction  of  this  kind  would  be  useful  for  the 
New  Testament,  wherein  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  is  proved  by  the  text,  "  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob,"  ^  the  independence  of  the  Christian  from 
the  Mosaic  law  l)y  the  history  of  Hagar  and 
Sarah,^  and  quotations  from  the  ancient  Scripture 
applied  generally  in  a  sense  that  did  not  originally 
1  Markxii.  26.  2  ciul.  iv.  21-31. 


220      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

belong  to  them.  As  for  tradition,  it  suffices  to 
recall  how  the  Fathers  and  theologians  prove  the 
Trinity  of  Divine  Persons  by  the  words  of  Genesis, 
"Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  like- 
ness," ^  and  by  the  three  angels  that  visited 
Abraham ;  ^  how  the  two  swords  that  Peter  is 
said  to  have  carried  at  Gethsemane  ^  demonstrated, 
according  to  Boniface  VIII.  and  the  mediaeval 
doctors,  the  double  power,  spiritual  and  temporal, 
of  the  Popes.  It  is  well  known,  also,  how  texts, 
in  themselves  perfectly  clear,  like  the  lamenta- 
tions of  Job  and  the  psalmists  over  the  annihila- 
tion of  man  by  death,  the  assertions  of  the  Saviour 
and  the  apostles  upon  the  approaching  end  of  the 
world,  the  saying  of  Christ  as  reported  by  John, 
"  The  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  ^  are  not  held  to 
mean  that  which  they  obviously  signify. 

May  it  not  be  said  that,  in  the  order  of  things 
moral  and  religious,  human  logic  has  no  care  for 
itself,  that  the  effort  towards  improvement  runs 
ahead  of  the  reasoning  that  justifies  it,  and  that 
it  bears  within  itself  a  truth  superior  to  all  the 
arguments  that  seek  to  establisli  it  ?  Thus  the 
best  apology  for  all  that  lives  lies  in  the  life 
ilself.      All   the   scaffolding   of    theological   and 

1  Gen.  i.  26.  2  Gen.  xviii.  2. 

'  Luke  xxii.  38  ;  John  xviii.  10.  *  John  xiv.  28. 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  221 

apologetic  argument  is  only  an  attempt,  and  a 
necessary  one,  to  figure  the  relation  of  the  past  to 
the  present  as  well  as  the  continuity  of  religion 
and  religious  progress  from  the  beginning.  The 
artifices  of  interpretation  serve  ceaselessly  to 
enlarge  and  spiritualize  the  meaning  of  the  Sym- 
bols, to  promote  tlie  development  and  intelligence 
of  religion  by  the  ever  renewed  perception  of 
analogies,  higher  and  more  worthy  of  their  mys- 
terious object.  External  imperfections,  which  are 
above  all,  imperfections  relative  to  us  to  the  critical 
knowledge  of  the  sources  of  history  and  to  the 
modern  education  of  intelligence,  do  not  render  this 
great  work  vain  nor  prejudice  the  importance  of  its 
results.  If  the  gospel  had  been  a  philosophical 
thesis,  the  thesis  would  have  been  very  badly  con- 
structed and  developed,  Ijut  as  the  gospel  was  a 
living  religion,  the  theological  work  of  Christian 
centuries  testifies  that  this  religion  has  really 
lived,  as  an  infinitely  powerful  movement,  of 
which  those  who  supported  it  and  whom  it  sup- 
ported had  only  a  partial  consciousness,  the 
whole  of  whose  depth,  those  who  to-day  attempt 
to  analyze  it  are  incapable  of  sounding.  How 
vain  it  is  to  proclaim  the  end  of  dogma  because 
the  doctrinal  flower  of  this  great  life  appears 
withei-ed,  and  to  imagine  that  the   fruitfuluess  of 


222      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Christian  thought  is  definitely  exhausted,  and 
that  the  old  tree  can  never  again  renew  its  adorn- 
ment for  a  new  epoch,  a  new  springtime ! 

From  the  moment  the  gospel  is  believed,  it  is 
impossible  not  to  think  of  the  belief,  not  to  work 
at  the  thought,  and  so  produce  a  theology  of  faith. 
It  is  equally  impossible  to  keep  the  faith  without 
transmitting  it,  for  it  demands  to  be  communi- 
cated, being  universal  hope  and  charity;  and 
it  cannot  be  communicated  without  a  certain 
teaching,  a  dogma  regularly  put  forward  for  belief. 
There  is  a  mastership  of  the  faith.  Eeasoning  in 
the  abstract,  it  is  possible  to  say  that  faith  springs 
up  in  the  soul  at  the  contact  of  the  gospel  as 
expressed  in  its  text.  But  in  fact,  faith  is  born  of 
Christian  instruction,  and  the  gospel  is  explained 
to  those  who  are  taught  to  believe.  The  distinction 
of  masters  and  pupils  is  therefore  inevitable.  It  is 
impossible  that  no  science  of  religion  should  exist, 
or  that  it  should  be  indifferent  to  the  preservation 
of  faith  in  cultivated  society.  Equally  is  it  im- 
possible that  this  science  should  be  accessible  to 
all,  that  all  should  be  doctors  of  religion.  From 
the  beginning  all  the  faithful  could  not  be  apostles. 
Under  the  conditions  which  are  prescribed  for  the 
gospel  in  this  world,  masters  are  needed  to  propa- 
gate it,  and  doctrines  to  express  it.     A  durable 


THE    CHRISTIAN  DOGMA  223 

society,  a  Church,  can  alone  maintain  equilibrium 
between  tradition,  which  preserves  the  heritage 
of  acquired  truth,  and  the  incessant  toil  of  human 
reason  to  adapt  ancient  truth  to  the  new  needs 
of  thought  and  knowledge.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  each  individual  should  recommence  the 
interrogation  of  the  past  on  his  own  account,  and 
reconstruct,  for  his  own  use,  an  entire  religion. 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  each  is  aided  by  all,  and  all 
by  each  one. 

It  is  no  longer  a  matter  for  astonishment  that 
the  Church  presents  herself  as  an  infallible  mis- 
tress to  those  believers  who  venture  forth  with- 
out her.  Her  attitude  is  as  easy  to  understand  as 
that  of  the  Protestant  theologians  who,  seeing  the 
powerlessness  of  the  individual  to  formulate  a 
creed  for  others  besides  himself,  and  knowing  no 
other  religious  principle  than  individualism,  take 
refuge  in  one  solitary  idea,  which  they  wisli  to 
believe  is  alone  evangelical  and  accessible  of 
itself  to  all  souls.  But  their  hypothesis  has  the 
inconvenience  of  being  unfounded  and  imprac- 
ticable, whilst  the  Catholic  hypothesis  is  a  real 
institution  that  continues  the  real  gospel.  It 
was  not  without  reason  that  Luther  retained  a 
dogma,  and  that  organized  Protestantism  tends  to 
orthodoxy  in  spite  of  itself. 


224      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

Is  this  the  same  thing  as  to  say  that  Christian 
dogma  thus  becomes  a  ready-made  belief,  before 
which  it  is  wise  to  bow,  without  too  close  investi- 
gation, lest  contradiction  be  called  for  ?  Even  as 
the  constant  flexibility  of  ecclesiastical  teaching 
brings  it  about  that  no  conflict  of  dogma  with 
knowledge  can  be  considered  as  irreducible,  so 
the  very  character  of  this  teaching  causes  the 
authority  of  the  Church  and  its  formulas  to  be  not 
incompatible  with  individuality  of  faith,  and 
does  not  necessarily  bring  with  it  that  perpetual 
subserviency  which  seems,  to  Protestant  theo- 
logians, the  normal  condition  of  the  Catholic 
believer.  The  Church  does  not  exact  belief  in  its 
formulas  as  the  adequate  expression  of  absolute 
truth,  but  presents  them  as  the  least  imperfect 
expression  that  is  morally  possible ;  she  demands 
that  men  respect  them  for  their  quality,  seek  the 
faith  in  them,  and  use  them  to  transmit  it.  The 
ecclesiastical  formula  is  the  auxiliary  of  faith,  the 
guiding  line  of  religious  thought :  it  cannot  be 
the  integral  object  of  that  thought,  seeing  that 
object  is  God  Himself,  Christ  and  His  work  ;  eacli 
man  lays  hold  of  the  object  as  he  can,  with  the 
aid  of  the  formula.  As  all  souls  and  all  intelli- 
gences differ  one  from  the  other,  the  gradations  of 
belief  are  also  of  infinite  variety,  under  the  sole 


THE    CHRISTIAN   DOGMA  225 

direction  of  the  Cliiircli,  and  in  the  nnity  of  her 
creed.  The  incessant  evolution  of  doctrine  is 
made  by  the  work  of  individuals,  as  their  activity 
reacts  on  the  general  activity,  and  these  individuals 
are  they  who  think  for  the  Church  while  thinking 
with  her. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  examine  whether  the 
tendency  of  modern  Catholicism  has  not  been  too 
tutelary,  or  if  the  movement  of  religious  and  even 
scientific  thought  has  not  been  more  or  less  im- 
peded by  it.  The  object  of  this  chapter  is  simply 
to  show  that  the  Catholic  conception  of  dogma 
and  of  faith  excludes  neither  the  personal  charac- 
ter of  belief  nor  the  vitality  of  dogma. 


SECTION  VI 

THE   CATHOLIC    WOESHIP 

INTEODUCTION 

History  knows  no  instance  of  a  religion  without 
a  ritual,  and  consequently  the  existence  of  a 
Christian  ritual  should  surprise  no  one.  But  it 
is  easy  to  conceive  that,  if  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity is  such  as  Herr  Harnack  has  defined  it,  so 
pure  a  Christianity  must  exclude  all  external 
forms  of  worship.  A  singular  religion,  designed, 
one  would  think,  for  angelic  hosts,  where  every 
individual  constitutes  a  separate  species,  rather 
than  for  men  destined  to  live  together  on  the 
earth ! 


CHAPTER  I 

As  the  rupture  with  Judaism  obliged  the  primi- 
tive commuDity  to  take  the  form  of  a  distinct 
society,  so  also  it  led  to  the  establishment  of 
forms  of  worship.  "  No  religious  movement  can 
exist  without  a  body."  ^  We  are  yet  told  that 
Christian  ritual  was  the  result  of  tlie  struggle 
of  the  Church  against  gnosticism.  Tlie  Church 
assumed  forms  similar  to  those  it  reproved  in  its 
adversaries.^  By  the  end  of  the  second  century 
she  is  an  organ  of  worship,  the  separation  of  the 
priests  from  the  laity  is  an  accomplished  fact,  and 
intermediaries  are  admitted  between  God  and  man. 
Just  as  Greek  philosophy  influenced  Christian 
faith  from  the  year  130  onwards,  so  a  new  era  of 
Hellenization  began  towards  the  years  220  to 
230  :  "  then  Greek  mysteries  and  Greek  civiliza- 
tion, in  all  the  fulness  of  their  development,  acted 
upon  the  Church,  but  not  Greek  mythology  nor 
Polytheism.       In    the    century    following,   pure 

I  Paire  113.  '^  I'a-e  130. 


228       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

Hellenism,  with  all  its  creations  and  acquisitions, 
is  established  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Here  also 
there  were  reservations,  but  they  often  consisted 
only  in  a  change  of  label,  the  thing  being  taken 
just  as  it  was,  and  in  the  worship  of  the  saints  a 
Christianity  of  a  lower  order  was  born."  ^ 

Judged  by  its  external  appearance,  the  Greek 
Church  (and  in  matters  of  ritual  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  Roman  Church)  has  collected,  we  are 
told,  the  impressions,  superstitions,  knowledge, 
and  practices  of  unknown  ages ;  with  its  solemn 
rites,  its  relics,  its  images,  its  priests,  its  monks, 
and  its  mysteries,  it  is  connected  with  the  Hellenic 
worship  of  the  Neo-Platonist  epoch,  and  not  with 
the  Church  of  the  first  centuries.  "  It  appears 
not  as  a  Christian  creation  with  a  Greek  thread, 
but  as  a  Greek  creation  with  a  Christian  thread. 
The  Christians  of  the  first  century  would  have 
fought  it  as  they  fought  the  worship  of  the  Magna 
Mater  or  of  Zeus  Soter.  ...  It  is  the  natural 
product  of  the  alloy  made  with  Hellenism,  split 
up  by  oriental  influence  and  Christian  preaching."  ^ 
The  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth  is  become  a 
worship  of  signs,  formulas,  and  idols.  "  Jesus 
Christ  gave  Himself  to  be  crucified  in  order  to 
destroy  religion  of  this  kind."^  The  Greek 
1  Page  126.        «  p^ges  137,  138.        3  Page  148. 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  229 

mystery  is  associated  in  the  Latin  Church  with 
tlie  idea  of  contract,  of  salvation  depending  on 
definite  conditions ;  the  Sacraments  are  means  of 
union  with  God,  conceived  as  obligatory  acts  ;  the 
discipline  of  penitence  resembles  a  code  of  civil 
procedure :  even  as  the  dispenser  of  salvation,  the 
Koman  Church  is  a  juridical  institution  as  "  poly- 
theistic," in  any  case,  as  the  Greek  Church.^ 

Herr  Harnack  holds,  with  Luther,  that  grace  is 
not  given  in  fragments;  that  the  only  grace  is 
God  Himself ;  that  all  the  doctrine  of  sacraments 
is  an  "outrage  on  the  majesty  of  God  and  a 
servitude  of  souls."  But  he  holds  that  the 
reformer  was  wrong  to  be  led  away  into  distress- 
ing discussions  on  the  means  of  grace,  on  the 
communion,  and  the  question  of  infant  baptism, 
whereby  he  ran  the  risk  of  exchanging  his  lofty 
conception  of  Divine  grace  for  the  Catholic  idea ; 
in  this  respect  he  has  left  his  Church  a  fatal 
heritage.^ 

1  Pages  155, 156.  2  Pages  175,  183,  184. 


CHAPTER   II 

It  may  be  said  that  Jesus,  in  the  course  of  His 
ministry,  neither  prescribed  nor  practised  any 
external  rite  of  worship  which  would  have  charac- 
terized the  gospel  as  religion.  Jesus  no  more 
decided  the  form  of  Christian  worship  beforehand 
than  He  laid  down  the  constitution  and  dogmas 
of  the  Church.  The  reason  is  that,  in  the  gospel, 
Christianity  is  not  yet  a  religion  with  a  separate 
existence.  It  has  taken  up  no  independent  posi- 
tion in  regard  to  legal  Judaism ;  the  Mosaic  rites, 
practised  by  the  Saviour  and  His  disciples,  take 
the  place  of  any  other  form,  and  satisfy  the  need 
that  all  religion  feels  to  express  itself  in  acts  of 
worship.  The  gospel,  as  such,  was  only  a  religious 
movement  within  the  bosom  of  Judaism,  an 
attempt  to  realize  perfectly  its  principles  and 
hopes.  It  would  therefore  be  inconceivable  that 
Jesus  should  have  formulated  a  ritual  before  His 
final  hour.  He  could  only  have  begun  to  think 
of  it  at  that  supreme  moment  when  the  imme- 
diate accomplishment  of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  231 

appeared  impossible  in  Israel,  and  another  accom- 
plishment, mysterious  in  its  prospect,  to  be 
obtained  by  the  death  of  the  Messiah,  remained 
the  last  chance  for  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the 
earth.  The  supper  of  the  Eucharist,  then,  stands 
out  as  the  symbol  of  the  kingdom,  that  the  sacri- 
fice of  Jesus  is  to  bring  ;  and  more  distinctly  still, 
this  communion,  on  the  day  of  its  first  celebration, 
signifies  the  abrogation  of  the  ancient  worship  and 
the  approaching  advent  of  the  kingdom,  rather 
than  the  institution  of  a  new  ritual,  as  the  thought 
of  Jesus  was  bent,  as  always,  on  the  idea  of 
realizinir  the  kinf^jdom  of  Heaven  rather  than  the 
direct  idea  of  founding  a  new  religion  and  a 
Church. 

However,  it  was  the  Church  that  came  to  the 
world,  and  by  force  of  circumstances  took  shape 
more  and  more  outside  the  pale  of  Judaism.  In 
this  way  Christianity  became  a  religion,  distinct, 
independent,  and  complete  ;  as  a  religion  it  needed 
a  ritual,  and  obtained  it,  of  such  a  nature  as  its 
origin  permitted  or  compelled.  At  first  the 
worship  was  imitated  from  that  of  the  Jews,  so 
far  as  concerned  the  external  forms  of  prayer,  and 
also  certain  important  rites,  such  as  baptism, 
anointing  with  oil,  and  laying  on  of  hands.  Tlie 
central   act   of  worship,    the   celebration   of  the 


232       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Eucharist,  was  really  the  creation  of  Jesus.  It 
became,  in  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles,  the  great 
mystery,  and  without  it  Christianity  would  not 
have  been  received  as  a  perfect  religion. 

A  ritual  was  already  organized  in  the  apostolic 
communities,  and  the  promptitude  with  which 
it  was  established  shows  clearly  how  it  responded 
to  an  intimate  inevitable  necessity  of  the  new 
body.  It  would  have  been  an  absolute  impos- 
sibility to  gain  proselytes  to  a  religion  with  no 
external  forms  and  sanctifying  acts  ;  Christianity 
had  to  find  a  ritual,  or  cease  to  exist.  For  this 
reason,  it  was  from  the  first  the  most  living 
worship  that  can  be  imagined.  Attempt  merely 
to  conceive  those  baptisms,  with  laying  on  of 
hands,  and  sensible  manifestations  of  the  Divine 
Spirit ;  that  breaking  of  bread,  and  the  meal  where 
the  very  presence  of  the  Master,  Who  had  just 
left  the  earth,  was  felt ;  the  songs,  celebrating  the 
acts  of  grace,  that  burst  forth  from  the  heart,  the 
signs,  sometimes  strange  ones,  of  the  overflowing 
enthusiasm.  Is  it  not  true  that,  just  as  there 
is  there  no  cold  and  abstract  belief,  so  there 
is  no  purely  symbolic  rite,  the  material  ex- 
pression of  such  a  belief  ?  Everything  is  living, 
the  faith  and  the  rite,  the  baptism  and  the  break- 
ing of  bread ;  the  baptism  is  the  Holy  Ghost  the 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  233 

Eucharist  is  the  Christ.  There  is  no  speculation 
about  the  token,  no  hint  of  physical  efficacy  of 
the  sacrament  in  baptism,  nor  of  transubstantiation 
in  the  Eucharist ;  but  what  is  said  and  believed 
goes  almost  beyond  these  theological  assertions. 
The  worship  of  that  primitive  age  might  be  def^^ined 
as  a  kind  of  spiritual  realism,  knowing  no  pure 
symbols,  and  essentially  sacramental  by  virtue  of 
the  place  that  rites  hold  in  it  as  the  vehicle  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  means  of  Divine  life.  St.  Paul 
and  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  witnesses 
to  it. 

The  same  necessity  that  presided  at  the  birth 
of  Christian  ritual  caused  its  increase.  The  ritual 
of  the  apostolic  Church  could  respond  to  the 
essential  needs  of  Christian  society  in  all  times ; 
in  its  special  form  it  corresponded  to  the  special 
conditions  of  nascent  Christianity.  As  the 
Church  did  not  attain,  at  one  stroke,  the  normal 
development  she  still  continues  to  pursue,  her 
ritual  has  developed,  and  is  developing,  under 
the  permanent  influence  that  gave  it  birth. 

Exactly  the  same  experience  had  overtaken 
Israelitish  worship.  It  is  as  an  effect  of  theo- 
logical perspective,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
faith,  that  this  worship  is  represented  in  the 
Sacred  Books  as  a  homogeneous  whole,  proceeding 


234       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

from  a  Divine  revelation,  regulating  the  least 
details  of  liturgy  and  sacerdotal  costume.  In 
reality,  Moses,  as  far  as  the  historian  can  gather, 
only  did  relatively  for  the  Israelitish  ritual  what 
the  apostolic  Church  did  for  the  Christian  ;  he 
authorized,  or  instituted,  the  fundamental  practice, 
the  worship  of  the  ark,  where  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  Israel,  was  present  without  an  image.  All  the 
rest  of  the  forms  of  worship  may  have  been 
borrowed,  before  Moses,  or  after  him,  from  other 
religions,  with  certain  changes  affecting  the  mean- 
ing, rather  than  the  form,  of  the  rites.  While 
running  the  risk  of  corruption  through  the  ad- 
mixture of  foreign  elements,  the  Mosaic  ritual 
realized  successively  the  transformations  that  its 
preservation  and  progress  demanded.  The  Jews 
of  the  captivity  were  descendants  of  the  Hebrew 
companions  of  Moses,  of  Joshua,  of  David,  and  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  who  had  little  by  little 
become  assimilated  to  the  children  of  Israel. 
When  human  groups  are  thus  mingled,  not  only 
physical  and  racial,  but  also  intellectual  and  moral 
qualities,  customs  and  traditions  are  blended 
together.  More  than  one  Canaanitish  rite  has 
been  canonized  in  Deuteronomy  or  Leviticus. 
It  would  have  been  as  difficult  to  discern  the 
features   derived   from    Canaan    in    the    Jewish 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  235 

type  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  as  to  distinguish 
the  non-Israelitish  contribution  to  the  Pentateuch. 
The  worsliip,  as  a  whole,  however  diverse  the 
services  of  its  elements,  was  one  by  the  spirit 
that  penetrated  it,  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  eliminating  or  neutralizing  the  spirit  of 
pagan  tradition. 

All  that  happened  in  the  history  of  Israelite 
religion,  happened  also  in  that  of  Christianity, 
but  under  different,  that  is  to  say,  more  regular, 
and  less  perilous,  conditions.  Suppose  that  the 
pagan  origin  of  a  certain  number  of  Christian 
rites  can  be  demonstrated,  these  rites  ceased  to 
be  pagan,  when  accepted  and  interpreted  by  the 
Church.  Suppose  that  the  great  development  of 
the  worship  of  saints,  of  relics,  of  the  Virgin,  is 
due,  in  some  degree,  to  a  pagan  influence,  it  is 
not  to  be  condemned  on  the  sole  fact  of  its  origin. 
If  apostolic  preaching  had  converted  only  Jews, 
there  would  not,  properly  speaking,  have  been  any 
Christian  ritual,  any  more  than  there  would  have 
been  a  Christian  Church  or  Christian  dogmas. 
But  Christianity,  by  remaining  Jewish,  could  not 
have  become  a  universal  religion,  it  would  not 
have  become  Christianity;  and  to  become  universal 
it  was  not  enough  that  it  should  lay  aside  its 
Jewish  form.    It   cannot  be  maintained    that   it 


236      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

had  no  need  to  assume  a  Greek,  a  Eoman,  or  a 
German  form,  but  should  have  conquered  the 
world  by  might  of  its  principles  alone.  Principles 
are  the  soul  of  religion,  but  principles,  without 
religious  institutions  and  doctrines,  are,  in  sober 
truth,  a  soul  without  a  body,  something  which 
has  neither  reality  nor  consistence  in  the  realm 
of  present  life.  Now,  the  institutions,  the  ex- 
ternal and  traditional  forms,  which  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  existence  or  to  the  preservation 
of  a  religion,  are  necessarily  adapted,  in  one  way 
or  another,  to  the  surroundings  w^herein  they 
are  established ;  they  even  result,  to  some  extent, 
from  their  surroundings,  as  the  adaptation  is  made 
by  virtue  of  a  reciprocal  action,  since  if  religion 
marks  with  its  influence  the  men  who  accept  it, 
the  men  in  their  turn,  as  nations  or  as  individuals, 
stamp  their  impression  on  the  religion  they 
receive. 

The  number  and  variety,  even  to  some  extent 
the  quality  of  the  symbols,  are  things  indifferent 
or  unimportant  in  themselves ;  custom  gives  them 
their  credit,  and  their  value  depends  upon  the 
si2:nificance  attached  to  them.  Of  what  value  in 
itself  is  the  rite  of  circumcision  ?  Less  than 
nothing,  since  in  the  abstract  it  may  be  con- 
sidered absurd  and  ridiculous.      Nevertheless,  in 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  237 

the  time  of  Antiocliiis  Epiplianes,  when  it  was  a 
symbol  of  fidelity  to  God,  it  became  something 
worthy,  noble,  and  holy.  It  would  be  puerile  to 
blame  the  Jews  for  practising  the  rite,  or  the 
prophets  for  not  condemning  it.  At  no  epoch  of 
history  before  the  gi'eat  upheaval  brought  about 
by  Christianity,  and  the  conversion  of  the  pagans 
to  Jesus  outside  the  Law,  could  the  idea  of  dis- 
pensing with  it  have  occurred  to  any  pious  Jew,  and 
he  would  have  been  mad  to  wish  to  suppress  it  as  a 
practice.  It  was  the  consideration  of  the  Gentiles 
that  forced  the  apostolic  Church  not  to  exact  it. 

But  the  Gentiles,  who  thus  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing exemption  from  a  Jewish  custom,  might  well 
obtain,  on  the  other  hand,  power  to  retain  their 
own  customs,  on  condition  of  imparting  to  them  a 
Christian  significance.  They  could  in  no  way 
bring  themselves  to  Judaism ;  and  they  could 
only  settle  down  as  Christians  by  imparting  to 
Christianity  something  of  themselves,  forms  of 
thought  and  forms  of  worship.  The  Church  has 
adopted  no  rite  that  resembles  circumcision  ;  she 
has  proscribed  all  the  bloody  and  magical  rites 
of  ancient  religions,  and  thereby  has  guaranteed, 
as  far  as  is  necessary  or  possible,  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  Christian  religion.  But  just  as 
fjiy   way  of   representing   God,  the   economy   of 


238       THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    CHURCH 

salvation,  redemption,  the  action  of  the  glorified 
Christ,  cannot  fail  to  have  some  analogy  or  historic 
relation  to  philosophical  or  religious  conceptions 
of   Greco-Eoman  antiquity,   so  also  the  Catholic 
worship    cannot   fail    to    retain    something   from 
the  ancient  religions  it  has  supplanted.     It  could 
not    do    otherwise,    once    it    took    their    place : 
Christianity   could   not   become   the    religion    of 
Greeks,  Eomans,  or   Germans,  unless  it  became 
one  with   them,  unless   it  received  many  things 
from  them,   unless  they  themselves,   as   it  were, 
entered  into  it,  and  made  it  in  truth  their  own 
religion.      In  matters   of  worship,    the   religious 
feeling  of  the   masses  has  always   preceded  the 
doctrinal   definitions   of    the    Church    as   to   the 
object  of  their  worship.     The  fact  is  full  of  signi- 
ficance ;  it  attests  the  law  wliich  demands  a  form 
of  worship  suitable  to  all  the  conditions  of  exist- 
ence   and   to   the   character   of  the   people   that 
believe.     The  real  communion  with  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist  was  exacted  by  the  Christian  conscience 
as  imperiously  as  the  Divinity  of  Jesus;  never- 
theless the   Divinity  of   Christ  is   not  a  dogma 
conceived  in  the  spirit  of  Jewish  theology,  neither 
is  the  Eucharist  a  Jewish  rite  ;   dogma  and  rite 
are   specifically  Christian,  and  proceed  from  the 
apostolic  tradition,  without  altering  the  fact  that 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  239 

the  influence  of  Greek  wisdom  can  be  perceived 
in  the  traditional  way  of  understanding  the  first, 
and  in  the  manner  of  understanding  the  second, 
an  element  doubtless  at  bottom  common  to  several 
religions,  if  not  to  all,  but  which  recalls  rather  the 
pagan  mysteries  than  the  unadorned  conception  of 
sacrifice  of  post-exilian  Judaism.  If  it  were  not 
to  become  Greek,  Eoman,  or  Geiman  in  its  form 
of  worship,  Christianity  must  have  avoided  the 
Greeks,  Romans  and  Germans ;  the  adaptation 
of  Christianity  was  inevitable.  The  important 
question  is  whether  the  adaptation  has  served  the 
spread  and  preservation  of  the  gospel,  or  whether 
the  gospel  itself  has  been  lost  in  it.  Have  the 
institution  of  the  ecclesiastical  ministry,  the  sac- 
rament, the  worship  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin,  of 
saints  and  angels,  compromised  the  gospel,  and 
are  they  foreign  to  its  spirit  ? 

Since  Christianity  has  become  a  religion,  and, 
becoming  a  religion,  has  become  a  form  of  worship, 
it  has  needed  ministers.  No  assemblies  of  many 
persons  could  take  place  regularly  and  frequently 
without  chiefs,  presidents,  superintendents,  and 
minor  officers  to  ensure  order.  The  college  of 
elders,  more  or  less  imitated  from  the  synagogues, 
was,  in  each  community,  what  the  apostolic 
college  had    been   at  first  in  the   community  of 


240      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHLRCH 

Jerusalem.       The   presidency    was    naturally   an 
attribute  of  the  elders,  and  it  was  also  natural 
that  one  of  them  should  occupy  the  leading  place 
in  the  celebration  of  the  Communion.     The  hypo- 
thesis   of    a   rotation   of    officials,   a   presidency 
exercised  by  each  elder  in  turn,  set  forth  by  some 
critics,  is  not  authorized  by  any  evidence,  and  is 
unlikely.      Besides  the  leaders,  the  elders,  pres- 
byters   (priests)  or   bishops,   there  were   inferior 
ministers,  the  deacons.     When  the  extraordinary 
ministry   of    the    apostles    and    the    missionary 
preachers  came  to  an  end  in  due  course,  with  the 
enthusiasm  that  stimulated  the  prophets,  towards 
the  close  of  the  first  century,  the  duties  of  instruc- 
tion   and    direction    of    the    community    passed 
entirely  to  the  resident  chiefs,  or  rather  adminis- 
trators, who  doubtless  exercised  these  functions  in 
part  from  the  beginning.     They  alone  decided  the 
question    of    the   admission    of    neophytes,   and, 
except    in    exceptional    cases,     alone     conferred 
baptism ;  in  proportion  as  a  discipline  of  penance 
required  organization  for  baptized  Christians,  they 
determined   its    conditions.       The    hierarchy    of 
order,  in  three  degrees,  became  constituted  when 
the  first  of  the  elders  was  really  separated  from 
the  presbyteral  group,  and  reserved   the  title  of 
bishop  for  himself. 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  241 

The  needs  of  the  liturgical  service  determined 
later  on  the  creation  of  minor  officers,  who  are 
to  be  regarded  as  a  division  of  the  diaconate: 
the  Church  of  the  East  had  subdeacons  and 
leaders,  with  exorcists,  fulfilling  their  individual 
ministry  and  not  constituting  an  order  of  the 
clergy;  the  Church  of  the  West  had  its  sub- 
deacons,  acolytes,  readers,  exorcists,  who  had  all 
regular  duties  in  the  preliminary  ceremonies  of 
baptism,  and  door-keepers.  In  any  case,  the 
orders  below  the  subdiaconate,  later  even  the 
subdiaconate,  and  finally  the  diaconate  itself, 
ended  by  becoming  in  the  Latin  Church  no 
more  than  preparatory  steps  to  the  priesthood, 
which  remains  the  only  really  active  ministry 
below  the  episcopate.  The  liturgical  functions 
of  the  other  orders  have  ceased,  in  fact,  to  be 
specialized ;  the  highest  are  exercised  on  occasion 
by  priests  and  the  lower  by  laics,  and  thus  a 
special  example  is  constituted  of  what  may  be 
called  suppressed  development,  like  a  stunted 
branch  on  a  tree  that  grows  vigorously  in  another 
direction,  or  like  the  rudiment  of  an  organ  no 
longer  existing  actually  in  the  living  body. 

The  organization  of  this  service  has  been  related 
to  the  development  of  the  system  of  sacraments 
and  must  not  be  judged  independently  of  it.    The 

B 


242       THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

Church  herself  counts  ordination,  that  is,  the 
ceremony  by  which  her  ministers  are  invested 
with  their  powers,  among  the  sacraments.  As 
to  their  origin,  it  stands  with  the  sacraments  as 
with  the  Church  and  the  dogmas,  they  proceed 
fiom  Jesus  and  the  gospel  as  living  realities  and 
not  as  expressly  defined  institutions.  It  is  only 
from  the  twelfth  century  onwards  that  Western 
tradition  has  determined  their  number.  The 
piimitive  Church  knew  but  two  principal:  baptism, 
with  which  confirmation  was  associated,  and  the 
Eucharist ;  the  number  of  secondary  sacraments 
was  indefinite.  Such  indefiniteness  would  be 
inexplicable  if  Christ,  in  the  course  of  His  mortal 
life,  had  drawn  the  attention  of  His  disciples  to 
seven  separate  rites,  destined  to  be  the  basis  of 
Christian  worship  for  all  time.  The  sacraments 
are  born  of  a  thought,  an  intention,  of  Jesus, 
interpreted  by  the  apostles  and  their  successors, 
in  the  light  and  u.nder  the  pressure  of  facts  and 
circumstances. 

It  may  be  by  a  sort  of  anticipation  .that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  shows  Christian  baptism  practised 
during  the  Saviour's  ministry.  It  is  a  fact  that 
Christ  gave  no  formal  precept  on  the  subject  before 
His  death.  Baptism  was  a  Jewish  rite,  raised  to 
special  honour  by  John  the  Baptist,  and   Jesus 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  243 

Himself  received  it  at  tlie  hands  of  John.  Just 
as  the  Saviour's  baptism  served  as  the  introduction 
to  the  gospel,  so  baptism  introduced  each  believer 
into  the  evangelical  society,  substituted  for  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven.  It  was  not  purely  a  symbol 
of  remission  of  sins  and  spiritual  regeneration, 
but  the  effective  sign  of  the  reception  of  the 
Spirit  by  the  faithful,  and  of  their  incorporation 
with  the  Church.  The  idea  and  the  practice  of 
baptism  have  undergone  no  important  change  in 
Catholic  tradition.  The  custom  of  baptizing 
infants  constitutes  a  disciplinary  development, 
which  makes  no  change  in  the  significance  of 
the  Sacrament,  though  perhaps  it  has  a  little 
diminished  it,  and  has  contributed  to  redoubling: 
the  significance  of  penance.^  Baptism,  followed 
by  confirmation  and  communion,  was  the  rite  of 
Christian  initiation  and  of  remission  of  sins ;  but 
the  Eucharist  remained  the  real  sacrament  of  the 
initiated.  The  idea  of  the  Christian  as  a  recon- 
ciled sinner  was  not  held  at  first,  and  the  Church 
was  slow  in  becoming  accustomed  to  it.  It  was 
supposed  that  ordinary  failings  were  atoned  for  by 
a  kind  of  continuous  effect  of  baptism,  by  prayer, 
by  communion,  and  by  all  good  works,  especially 
by  works  of  charity.  Very  grave  and  scandalous 
1  Cf.  Newman,  "Essay  on  Development"  (184G),  p.  154. 


244      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

sins  set  the  sinners  outside  the  Church  and  the 
regular    economy   of   salvation.     Soon,   however, 
such  sinners  were  admitted  to  a  perpetual  penance, 
accepted  gladly,  in  the  interest  of  their  salvation, 
although  as  yet  the   Church  did  not  take  it  on 
herself  to  pardon,  and  left  the  repentant  sinner 
to  the  Divine  mercy.     But  the  multiplication  of 
sins  was  sure  to  produce  the  indulgence,  and  an 
institution  of  pardon.     It  was  at  first  in  regard  to 
sins  of  the  flesh  that  discipline   was  slackened. 
Calixtus,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  decided  that  these 
sins  could  be  remitted  after  a  penitence  more  or 
less  prolonged.     Concessions  were  soon  made  in 
cases    of    apostasy,    notably    after    the    persecu- 
tion of  Decius.     The  principle  of  temporary  and 
absolving   penance,    with    reconciliation    by   the 
authority  of  the   Churcli,  either  at   the  moment 
of  death,  or  after  a  definite  lapse  of  time,  was 
established :    it   exists   as   a   second    baptism,   a 
plank    of    salvation    after     shipwreck.      But    if 
penance    thus    became    a    Christian    institution, 
and   the  reconciliation    of  sinners   a  function  of 
the  Church,  as  yet  there  was  no  thought  of  em- 
ploying   the    name    of    sacrament    to    designate 
such  a  duty :  it  was  a  shameful  sacrament.     The 
sinner   must  submit   to  it,  if  he  desired   recon- 
ciliation, but   whoever  endured   public   penance. 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  245 

and  there   was    no  other  form,  was   disqualified 
as  a  Christian ;    clerks  were  only  admitted  to  it 
by  losing  their  status,  and  a  reconciled  penitent 
could  be  no  member  of  the  clergy.     The  discredit 
attaching     to     penance     gradually     disappeared, 
through   the    multiplication  of   cases  wherein  it 
was  judged  necessary,  through  the  fact  that  many 
Christians  submitted,  in  a  spirit  of  mortification 
of  the   body,   to   a   life  very  analogous    to   that 
enjoined    as   penance,   and    finally    through    the 
fact  that  this  rule  of  public  penance  was  trans- 
formed and  gave  way  to  that  of  private  penance. 
The  fourth  Council  of  the  Lateran  (1215)  definitely 
consecrates  and  regulates  private  penance,  and  all 
mortal   sins    must  be   submitted    to   the   proper 
pastor  or  priest,   once  a  year,  before  the  Easter 
Communion,  which  is  declared   obligatory.     The 
priest    will    enjoin    a    penance    proportioned    to 
tlie  faults,  and  will  give  absolution.     From  the 
twelfth  century  penance  follows  absolution  instead 
of  preceding  it,  a  fact  which  tends   to  augment 
the  character  of  grace  in  absolution,  and  even  gives 
it  the  form  of  a  sacramental  grace.     The  develop- 
ment of  discipline  has   had   an  effect    upon   the 
institution  as  a  whole,  upon  the  subject  and  object 
of  penance,  the  declaration  of  sins,  the  character, 
duration   and  place  of  satisfactory  penance,  and 


246       THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

even  upon  the  formula  of  absolution,  which  was 
at  first  deprecatory,  the  bishop  or  priest  asking 
of  God  the  pardon  of  him  whom  they  sought  to 
reconcile,  but  has  become  imperative,  the  minister 
of  the  Church  saying,  "  I  absolve  thee,"  because 
he  gives  a  sentence  and  confers  a  sacrament. 

We  know  that  development  did  not  stop  there, 
and  that  penance,  instituted  to  deal  with  mortal 
sins  committed  after  baptism,  became,  in  fact, 
especially  after  the  Council  of  Trent  and  in  the 
Church  of  the  latter  centuries,  a  common  practice 
of  Christian  perfection,  whose  use  is  only  neglected 
by  the  real  sinners.  The  sacrament  of  penance 
has  assumed  the  character  of  a  moral  discipline, 
whose  efficacy  can  only  be  equitably  judged  by 
those  who  make  use  of  it.  and  they  find  it  an  aid 
and  not  an  obstacle  to  piety. 

The  development  of  the  Eucharist  has  been 
mainly  theological  and  liturgical.  At  bottom 
the  belief  and  the  rite  have  no  more  changed  than 
have  the  belief  in  baptism  and  its  rite.  The 
Supper  of  the  early  Christians  was  a  memorial  of 
the  Passion  and  an  anticipation  of  the  festival  of 
the  Messiah,  whereat  Jesus  was  present.  There 
is  no  very  marked  difference  between  the  Pauline 
conception  of  the  Eucharist  and  the  idea  that 
simple  Christians  have  of  it   to-day,  those   who 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  247 

are  strangers  to  the  speculations  of  theology,  who 
believe  that  they  enter  into  leal  communion  with 
God  in  Christ  by  taking  the  consecrated  bread. 
The  entire  Christian  worship  developed  round  tlie 
supper  of  the  Eucharist.  The  simple  blessing  and 
distribution  of  bread  and  wine,  detached  from  the 
Love  feast,  surrounded  by  readings  and  prayers 
and  hymns,  became  the  offering  of  the  Mass. 
Since  the  death  of  Jesus  was  conceived  as  a 
sacrifice,  the  act  commemorating  this  death 
naturally  partook  of  the  same  character.  The 
liturgical  form  helped  to  impart  the  same  thing, 
by  the  real  offering  of  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the 
participation  of  all  the  faithful  in  the  sanctified 
food,  as  in  the  sacrifices  of  the  ancients.  Thence 
came  the  idea  of  a  commemorative  sacrifice,  which 
simply  perpetuated  that  of  the  Cross,  took  nothing 
from  its  significance  or  its  merit,  and  satisfied  all  the 
aims  included  in  the  common  prayer  of  the  Church, 
interests  spiritual  and  temporal,  the  salvation  of 
the  living  and  the  dead.  The  Christian  senti- 
ment which  has  preserved,  in  a  sense,  the  Divinity 
of  Jesus  against  certain  speculations  of  learned 
metaphysics,  has  protected  the  Eucharist  against 
speculations  of  abstract  symbolism,  and  as  the 
evolution  of  penance  ended  by  bringing  about  the 
confession  of  the  devout,  the  evolution  of  the  rite 


248      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

of  the  Eucharist  ended  in  private  masses  for  the 
priests,  and  communions  of  piety  for  the  faithful. 

Jesus  seems  to  have  commanded  or  permitted 
His  disciples  to  anoint  the  sick  with  oil,  and  piay 
over  them  with  a  view  to  relieve  or  even  to  cure 
them.  Possibly,  He  even  set  them  the  example 
of  this  procedure :  ^  that  is,  in  the  gospel,  the 
whole  sacrament  of  extreme  unction.  The  history 
of  this  custom  in  the  first  Christian  centuries  is 
obscure  enough.  The  use  of  applications  of  oil 
has  probably  never  ceased  since  primitive  times, 
but  the  use  of  sacred  oil  was  very  variable.  The 
anointing  of  the  sick  in  danger  of  death,  by  the 
priest,  was  distinguished  by  its  special  significance 
and  more  solemn  character.  From  a  historical 
point  of  view,  it  was  this  use  of  the  oil  that  gave 
it  a  place  among  the  sacraments  when  the  cata- 
logue was  drawn  up,  limited  to  the  number  seven. 

Christ  recognized  monogamy  as  a  Divine  insti- 
tution, and  declared  it  indissoluble :  that  in  the 
gospel  is  the  whole  sacrament  of  marriage. 
Among  Christians  marriage  was  very  soon  the 
object  of  a  special  benediction ;  nevertheless,  this 
prayer  of  the  Church  was  never  regarded  as  an 
indispensable  consecration  of  the  conjugal  bond. 
Marriage  entered  the  list  of  sacraments  by  reason 
»  Cl.  Mark  vi.  13. 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  249 

of  those  words  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians/ 
wherein  it  is  presented  as  the  symbol  of  the  union 
between  Christ  and  the  Church,  and  because  of 
the  use  of  the  word  "  sacramentum  "  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  although  the  word  in  this  place  has  the 
meaning  of  allegorical  mystery,  and  does  not  stamp 
marriage  in  itself  as  a  sacred  rite. 

The  sacramental  system  is  thus  found  to  include 
and  consecrate  the  hierarchical  organization  of  the 
Church  and  the  principal  moments  of  Christian 
life.  Without  any  previously  constructed  scheme, 
an  institution  became  realized  which  surrounds 
human  existence  with  a  Divine  atmosphere,  and 
is,  without  doubt,  by  the  intimate  harmony  of  all 
its  parts  and  the  intensity  of  its  influence,  the 
most  remarkable  creation  that  has  ever  proceeded 
spontaneously  from  a  living  religion.  The  period 
at  which  the  Church  fixed  the  number  of  the 
sacraments,  is  only  a  special  point  in  the  develop- 
ment, and  marks  neither  the  beginning  nor  tlie 
end.  The  starting-point  of  the  system  is,  as  has 
been  indicated,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  and  the 
Last  Supper.  The  end  is  still  to  come,  as  sacra- 
mental development,  continuing  to  follow  the 
same  general  lines,  can  only  end  with  the  Church 
herself. 

*  Ephesians  v.  32. 


250      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

The  importance,  therefore,  of  the  work  of 
scholastic  theologians  must  not  be  exaggerated, 
though  they  fixed  the  number  of  sacraments 
before  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  united  in  the 
same  rubric  actions  as  different  as  baptism  and 
matrimonial  contract,  absolution  of  sins  and 
extreme  unction,  finding  in  each,  according  to  the 
Aristotelian  formula,  a  substance  and  a  form. 
All  these  things  existed,  more  living  in  them- 
selves than  in  the  studied  description  made  of 
them,  and  have  not  ceased  to  surpass  the  descrip- 
tion, which  bears  the  same  relation  to  them  as 
an  incomplete  anatomical  statement  to  a  real  or- 
ganism. Eegarded  historically,  the  development 
shows  a  persevering  effort  on  the  part  of  Chris- 
tianity to  penetrate  with  its  spirit  the  whole 
existence  of  man.  Is  not  this  effort  the  very 
essence  of  a  perfect  religion,  and  is  it  astonishing 
that  a  religion  that  has  taken  to  itself  absolutely, 
not  only  its  founder,  but  the  first  generations  of 
its  adherents,  demanding  the  sacrifice  of  their 
life,  should  have  left  outside  its  sphere  of  action 
no  part  of  man  nor  of  human  life  ? 

This  religion  considers  man  wholly  as  its 
property.  This  power  of  possession  is  signified  in 
a  way  by  all  the  sacraments,  as  was  necessary. 
Christianity  has  not  escaped  the  need  of  symbol. 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  251 

the  normal  form  of  worship,  as  well  as  of  religious 
knowledge.  It  announces  its  right,  the  right  of 
God  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ,  at  the  same  time  it 
acts  on  man  by  sensible  signs,  rites,  and  formulas, 
appropriate  to  the  particular  ends  it  has  in  view. 
The  signs  that  are  employed  have  not  been  chosen 
hap-hazard,  but  have  been  suggested  or  imposed 
by  past  tradition,  by  customs  of  life  or  by  circum- 
stances. Christianity  has  found  in  tliem  an 
indispensable  refuge  made  to  its  needs,  since  the 
evolution  of  rites  has  been  conditioned  by  the  con- 
stant evolution  of  religion  and  piety.  Christianity 
needed  sacramental  signs,  and  needed  sufficient 
of  them;  they  have  been  such  as  the  conditions 
of  the  Christian  institution  indicated;  they  were 
sure  to  be  modified,  at  least  accidentally,  and 
they  have  developed  under  the  influence  of  the 
external  and  internal  conditions  in  which  Chris- 
tianity has  lived. 

There  is  little  need  to  show  how  the  worship 
of  Jesus  was  born  in,  or  rather  with,  Christianity. 
In  their  daily  intercourse  with  their  JMaster,  the 
disciples  had  no  other  worsliip  for  Him  than  a 
religious  reverence.  Even  after  the  confession 
of  Peter,  there  was  no  alteration  of  the  simplicity 
that  governed  the  relations  between  Christ  and 
the   apostles.     The  glory  of  the  Messiah  was  still 


252      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE    CHURCH 

to  come,  and  no  homage  would  be  rendered  till 
the  glory  was  made  mani  est.  But  the  respective 
situations  of  the  Saviour  and  His  followers  were 
entirely  changed  as  a  result  of  the  Passion  and  the 
Eesurrection.  Jesus  had  then  entered,  for  His 
part,  into  the  splendour  of  His  reign  ;  He  was 
living  and  immortal,  seated  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father,  participating  in  His  power  :  He  was 
no  longer  only  the  Master  who  taught  with 
authority  the  revelation  of  God,  He  was  the  Lord 
whom  God  had  set  as  the  governor  over  His 
Kingdom.  "  Ye  men  of  Israel,  liear  these  words  ; 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  unto 
you  by  mighty  works  and  wonders  and  signs 
which  God  did  by  Him  in  the  midst  of  you,  even 
as  ye  yourselves  know.  .  .  .  God  hath  made  Him 
both  Lord  and  Christ,  this  Jesus  whom  ye 
crucified."  ^  "  All  authority  hath  been  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and 
make  disciples  of  all  the  nations.  ...  I  am  with 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  ^ 
It  was  thus  that  Christian  consciousness  repre- 
sented the  founder  of  Christianity,  following  all 
that  Jesus  had  Himself  proclaimed  of  His  coming 
glory.  It  was  therefore  very  natural  that  men 
should  pray  to  God  through  Jesus,  with  Jesus, 
^  Acts  ii.  22-36.  2  Matt,  xxviii.  18-20. 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  253 

in  Jesus,  and  soon  come  to  pray  to  Jesus  Himself, 
if  indeed  they  did  not  do  so  from  the  beginning, 
since  He  was  always  with  His  own,  ready  to  hear 
and  with  power  to  grant  their  prayers. 

It  is  impossible  even  to   conceive  how  Chris- 
tianity could   have  failed   to  be   the  worship   of 
Christ,  and  it  is  a  probable  supposition  that  this 
worship  preceded  in  some  way,  sustained,  and  in- 
spired the  work  of  Christian  thought  on  the  person 
of  the  Eedeemer.    The  intercourse  of  the  Christian 
was  in  heaven  with  his  Lord  ;  if  he  distinguished 
God  from  Christ,  none  the  less  he  saw  God  in 
Christ,  so   close  and  indissoluble  was  the  union 
of  the  two ;  praying  to  Christ  he  prayed  to  God, 
although  the  solemn  prayers  of  the  community 
were  addressed  to  God  through  Christ.    Jesus  was, 
as  it  were,  the  countenance  of  God  turned  towards 
humanity.      Christian   piety    continued   to   phice 
the    Saviour  at  an  ever  higher  degree  of  glory, 
seeking  God   in  Him  and  finding  Him,  adoring 
Him  in  heaven,  and  endeavouring  to  follow  His 
example   on    earth,   drawing   strengtli   from    His 
double   character— the    Divine    and    the   human. 
Therein  has  always  lain  the  life  of  Christianity, 
and  the  principle  of  its  moral  fruitfulness.     Those 
are  bold  indeed  who  believe  this  conduct   to  be 
an  alteration  of  its  essence.     It  is  unnecessary  to 


254      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

add  tliat  the  same  piety  under  different  forms 
continues  to  exist  in  the  numberless  devotions 
that  have  become  linked  to  the  worship  of  Jesus, 
and  have  continued  down  to  our  own  day,  princi- 
pally the  worship  of  the  Eucharist  and  of  the 
Sacred  Heart,  the  latter  more  recent  in  appearance 
than  in  reality. 

The  worship  of  martyrs  is  hardly  less  ancient 
than  martyrdom  itself.  From  the  earliest  times 
care  was  taken  to  preserve  the  remains  of  dead 
brethren,  especially  of  those  who  died  for  the 
faith,  because  of  the  belief  in  the  approaching 
resurrection  of  the  body  at  the  second  coming  of 
the  Lord.  This  conception  of  resurrection  had  a 
more  powerful  influence  on  minds  then  than  it 
has  to-day  over  the  most  sincere  believers.  The 
care  of  dead  bodies  finds  thus  a  most  natural 
explanation,  and  this  care  was  accompanied  by  a 
sense  of  piety,  having  for  its  object  these  remains 
hallowed  by  the  spirit  and  by  an  immortal  hope. 
The  kingdom  they  had  awaited,  and  still  expected 
so  eagerly,  was  now  visibly  constituted  beyond 
mortal  vision  by  all  the  blessed  who  rejoined 
Christ  in  His  glory,  and  were  none  the  less  united 
in  Him,  even  as  He  was,  to  the  Church  on  the 
earth,  the  organ  of  evangelical  preaching  and  of 
the  preparation  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  255 

The  worship  of  the  Saints  is,  therefore,  the 
natural  complement  of  the  worship  of  Jesus,  and 
the  worship  of  Jesus  is  the  Christian  worship. 
Christianity  without  this  worship  is  only  a 
philosophy — if  it  is  preferred,  call  it  a  mystic 
philosophy — which  would  gladly  take  the  name 
of  religion,  but  has  no  right  to  it,  having  kept 
no  definite  religious  form.  It  is  not  Israelitish 
monotheism,  seeing  that  this  religion  finds  its 
form  in  the  privilege  which  makes  the  sole  God 
the  God  of  Israel  alone.  Christianity  is  a  religion, 
and  a  universal  one,  because  it  incarnates  the  sole 
God  in  the  Son  of  man,  and  adores  in  God  Man 
the  God  of  all  humanity. 

Save  for  the  special  importance  of  its  develop- 
ment, the  worship  of  Mary  presents  itself  under 
the  same  conditions  as  the  worship  of  the  saints. 
Primitive  evangelical  tradition  was  entirely  filled 
with  the  memory  of  Jesus ;  the  mother  of  Christ 
is  barely  mentioned  in  one  situation  where  her 
intervention  had  no  favourable  significance.^  Later 
thought  centred  on  Mary  in  the  consideration  of 
the  origin  of  Jesus.  The  virginal  conception, 
which  tended  merely  to  heighten  the  personality  of 
the  Saviour,  and  cause  appreciation  of  His  Di\ine 
Sonship,  came  to  imply  a  special  honour  for  the 
*  Mark  iii.  31. 


256      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

Virgin  Mother.  It  may  be  said  that  the  worship 
of  Mary  has  profited  by  every  advance  of  the 
Christological  dogma.  Belief  in  the  virginity 
maintained  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  in  the 
material  virginity  maintained  even  in  the  birth, 
completed  the  idea  of  the  virginal  conception; 
it  served  to  glorify  Jesus,  and  incidentally  more 
and  more  to  glorify  the  mother  of  Jesus.  It  seems 
that  here,  too,  common  piety  preceded  learned 
theology,  and  that  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  in 
proclaiming  Mary  the  mother  of  God,  far  less  gave 
a  new  direction  to  worship  than  a  dogmatic  con- 
secration to  a  very  vivid  sentiment  of  Christian 
consciousness. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  Mary  occupied  in 
theology  later  than  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  the 
place  that  Arius  assigned  to  the  Word  of  God. 
The  substitution,  though  unconscious,  was  not 
therefore  accidental;  it  arose  from  a  kind  of 
unseen  necessity,  as  though  Catholic  piety  could 
not  dispense  with  this  intermediary  power  that 
the  heresiarch  desired  to  personify  in  Christ  and 
orthodoxy  actually  personified  in  His  Mother. 
Again,  it  was  popular  or  monastic  devotion  that 
initiated  the  later  progress  of  the  worship  of  Mary 
and  of  what  may  be  called  Mariology.  It  is 
known     that     the    festival    of    the    Conception 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  2^y 

preceded,  and  in  a  way  provoked,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Immaculate  Conception. 

Thus  there  was  formed  in  Catholicism  a  human 
ideal  that  has  continued  to  grow  incessantly.  The 
historical  justification  of  the  assertions  of  faith, 
of  which  this  ideal  is  composed,  has  never  been 
sought  otherwise  than  by  the  collection  of  testi- 
mony wherein  these  very  assertions  are  formu- 
lated, testimony  which  is  an  expression  of  Catholic 
Christianity.  It  is  perhaps  less  easy  than  is 
believed  to  show  that  this  ideal  is  contrary  to  the 
gospel,  and  has  in  no  way  proceeded  from  it. 


CHAPTER   III 

If,  however,  tlie  moral  necessity  of  this  develop- 
ment can  be  proved,  does  it  not  also  follow  that 
it  has  been  "  natural,"  as  Herr  Harnack  calls  it, 
and  outside  that  worship  of  the  spirit  that  the 
Saviour  came  to  establish  ?  Truly  the  develop- 
ment has  been  natural,  inasmuch  as  it  has  been 
a  historical  fact,  arising  to  satisfy  the  innate  needs 
of  human  nature.  In  this  sense  it  may  just  as 
well  be  said  that  confidence  in  God  is  natural  to 
man,  and  that  the  gospel  of  Divine  goodness  is 
as  little  supernatural  as  the  Christian  ritual.  If 
all  movement  whose  sequence  can  be  perceived  is 
to  be  called  natural,  and  if  the  nature  of  God's 
action  in  the  soul,  and  the  confident  impulse  of 
the  soul  towards  God,  are  to  be  classed  as  outside 
nature,  then  Christian  worship  is  natural  in  its 
external  characteristics  and  co-ordinated  to  a 
supernatural  effect,  in  so  far  as  it  acts  on  the  soul 
by  a  sensible  means  to  aid  in  producing  that 
which  is  properly  supernatural  in  man,  namely, 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  259 

life  in  God.^  The  evangelical  word,  the  indispen- 
sable means  of  faith,  is  just  as  natural  as  a  text,  as 
the  sacraments  are  as  a  sign,  but  it  is  none  the 
less  the  vehicle  of  a  supernatural  good. 

The  conception  that  Protestant  theologians 
readily  form  of  the  worship  in  spirit  is  no  more 
rational  than  evangelical.  It  is  impossible  to 
unite  men  in  a  worship  that  is  purely  an  affair  of 
the  soul,  and  it  would  be  vain  to  impose  such 
worship  on  human  beings,  who  are  bound  by 
their  physical  conditions,  and  can  only  think 
through  being  able  to  hear  and  to  speak.  Their 
religious  life  cannot  be  independent  of  every 
sensible  element,  which  aids  them  to  become 
conscious  of  it,  to  define  and  affirm  it.  Jesus 
was  the  first  to  give  His  disciples  a  formula  of 
prayer;  He  observed  the  practices  of  Jewish 
worship  ;  He  never  recommended  to  His  followers 
a  worship  without  external  forms,  and  never  in- 
tended to  establish  such  a  worship.  The  saying 
of  Christ  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  as  to  the  worship 
"  in  spirit  and  in  truth,"  ^  does  not  oppose  a 
purely  inner  worship  to  an  external  one  ;  but  the 
worship  that  may  be  called  inspired,  spiritualized, 

1  Cf.  Newman,  "  Essays  critical  and  historical,"  ii.  230 
194-196. 

2  John  iv.  23,  24. 


26o      THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   CHURCH 

the  Christian  worship  known  to  the  evangelist, 
and  animated  by  the  spirit  given  to  tlie  faithful, 
is  substituted  for  a  worship  localized  at  Jerusalem 
or  on  Mount  Gerizim. 

The  same  evangelist  who  gives  the  formula  of 
worship  in  spirit,  gives  also  the  formula  of  the 
Incarnation ;  the  two  correspond  to  one  another ; 
God  is  a  Spirit,  as  is  also  His  Word ;  the  true 
worship  is  spiritual,  since  it  is  founded  on  the 
communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  But  just  as 
God  the  Spirit  is  made  manifest  in  the  Incarnate 
Word,  so  the  life  of  the  Spirit  is  communicated 
and  maintained  by  Spiritual  sacraments,  the  water 
of  baptism,  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist. 
The  system  of  John  is  a  perfect  whole ;  neither 
the  discourse  to  Nicodemus  nor  the  instruction 
concerning  the  bread  of  life  contradict  the  state- 
ment made  to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  and  the 
whole  agrees  with  the  conception  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, the  Divine  manifesting  itself  in  the  human, 
the  spiritual  acting  in  the  sensible,  the  eternal 
reality  figured  in  the  terrestrial  symbol  and  com- 
municated by  it.  Catholic  worship  does  nothing 
but  apply  the  theory  of  John,  and  this  theory  was 
the  description  of  the  evangelical  fact. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  pure  reason,  the 
efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  not  so  very  difficult 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  261 

a  tiling  to  conceive.  It  is  with  the  sacraments 
as  with  ordinary  language,  the  virtue  of  ideas 
passes  into  the  words,  acts  through  the  words,  is 
communicated  really,  physically,  by  the  words,  and 
only  produces  its  effect  on  the  mind  by  the  aid 
of  the  words.  Therefore  it  is  fair  to  speak  of 
the  virtue  of  words,  for  they  contribute  to  the 
existence  and  fortune  of  ideas.  In  so  far  as  an 
idea  has  found  no  formula  capable  of  striking 
the  mind  by  a  clearness,  at  least  in  appearance, 
by  its  simplicity  and  its  vigour,  it  has  no  power 
of  action.  It  is  true  that  the  action  of  the  formula 
depends  on  the  historical  circumstances  of  its  pro- 
duction, but  this  fact  by  no  means  lessens  the 
analogy  between  words,  the  natural  expression 
and  indispensable  means  of  communication  of 
ideas,  and  the  sacraments,  the  expression  of  inner 
religion  and  means  of  communication  with  God. 
The  significance  of  the  sacramental  symbols  has 
also  been  determined  by  the  historical  circum- 
stances connected  with  their  establishment  and 
use.  Thence  comes  their  efficacy  ;  they  are  signs 
appropriate  to  their  end,  as  words  can  be  appro- 
priate to  the  expression  of  thought;  they  are 
Divine  signs  because  they  are  religious ;  they  are 
Christian,  because  they  proceed  from  Christ.  On 
all  these  grounds  they  are  etlicacious,  and  their 


262       THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    CHURCH 

power  comes  not  from  him  on  whom  they  are 
conferred,  but  is  exercised  in  him  and  upon  him  ; 
it  is  bound  up  with  the  tie  that  links  them  to 
Jesus,  which  makes  them,  as  it  were,  actions  of 
Christ  living  in  the  Church,  and  it  is  conditioned 
at  once  by  the  special  application  of  the  symbol 
to  him  who  receives  it  and  by  the  disposition  it 
finds  in  him. 

These  considerations  help  to  make  clear  the, 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  regarding  the 
sacraments,  and  the  essential  harmony  of  this 
doctrine  with  the  gospel.  This  is  not  the  place 
to  set  forth  the  theory  of  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacrament  in  itself,  as  a  definite  institution  of 
Christ,  in  its  substance  and  its  form,  that  cannot 
be  modified  without  destroying  its  effect.  The 
formulas  of  sacramental  theology,  like  the  greater 
number  of  dogmatic  definitions,  were  conceived 
in  opposition  to  assertions  rejected  by  the  Church 
as  erroneous,  namely,  that  sacraments  have  no 
real  efficacy,  that  they  do  not  come  from  Christ, 
that  the  choice  of  them  is  arbitrary  and  without 
relation  to  the  effect.  Positive  doctrine,  as  a 
counterblast  to  condemned  opinion,  is  always 
capable  of  explanation  and  of  progress.  It 
matters  little  that  sacraments  are  held  to  be 
composed  of  form  and  of  substance ;  there  would 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  263 

be  nothing  unsuitable  in  abandoning  these  notions 
of  ancient  philosophy,  artificially  applied  to  the 
sacraments,  and  considering  them  in  themselves, 
taking  tliem  for  what  they  are,  namely,  religious 
acts,  endowed  with  supernatural  efficacy.  Tliis 
efficacy  does  not  belong  to  them  merely  as 
religious  acts,  but  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  acts 
of  religious  Christians,  related  to  Christ  through 
the  Church,  men  in  whom  Christ  lives  and  acts, 
as  He  lives  and  acts  in  the  Church  and  the 
Church's  teaching. 

The  life  of  a  religion  consists  not  in  its  ideas, 
its  formulas  and  its  rites  as  such,  but  in  the  secret 
principle  which  first  gave  an  attractive  power,  a 
supernatural  efficacy,  to  the  ideas  and  formulas  and 
rites.  The  sacraments  have  no  meaning  for  the 
Christian  except  through  Jesus  or  His  Spirit  acting 
in  the  material  symbol;  they  figure  and  realize 
the  constant  action  of  Christ  in  the  Church.  Jesus 
established  them  so  far  as  they  are  a  permanent 
institution  proceeding  from  Him,  powerful  through 
Him.  The  incontestable  and  important  changes 
undergone  in  the  management  and  arrangement 
of  several  of  them  do  not  deprive  them  either  of 
their  character  or  their  value  as  sacraments  of 
Christ.  The  Church  has  always  believed  that  she 
possesses  in  herself  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  to  direct 


264      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

her  in  all  things.  The  action  of  the  Spirit  is 
linked  to  the  forms  of  her  government,  her  teach- 
ing and  her  worship.  The  sacramental  institution 
is  not  an  inert  instrument,  but  a  principle,  a 
mode  of  action  transmitted  from  Christ  to  the 
Church,  susceptible  of  varied  application,  change- 
less only  in  itself,  its  general  direction  and 
essential  form.  The  Church  regulates  its  progress 
and  action,  regarding  herseK  as  the  authorized 
interpreter  of  the  intentions  of  its  founder,  and 
of  the  suitable  way  to  execute  it.  The  sacra- 
mental system  is  the  historically  established  form 
taken  by  the  Christian  institution,  the  Church, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  a  sanctifying  organization  through 
which  the  immortal  Christ  continues  to  act. 

It  is,  perhaps,  true  that  God  is  the  only  Grace, 
as  He  is  the  supreme  good  of  man  and  his  final 
end.  But  human  life  cannot  be  resolved  into  a 
simple  act  of  union  with  God,  to  contain  the 
whole  of  religion.  It  is  written  that  the  "  Grace 
of  God  "  is  "  manifold,"  ^  and  truly  it  must  adapt 
itself  to  very  varied  conditions  of  existence, 
bringing  God  to  them,  whose  inexhaustible  nature 
can  no  longer  be  summed  up  for  man  in  a  single 
aspect.  The  activity  of  the  Father  is  not  exhausted 
by  the  single  movement  of  pardon.  Why  should 
»  1  Pet.  iv.  10. 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  265 

not  His  permanent  assistance  be  recalled  and 
guaranteed  by  material  symbols  ?  These  symbols 
take  notliing  from  tlie  Divine  majesty,  if  it  is 
well  understood  that  their  efficacy  is  in  no  way 
magical,  and  if,  instead  of  interposing  between 
God  and  man,  they  only  remind  human  beings 
of  the  constantly  beneficent  presence  of  their 
Creator.  Nor  does  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  come  between  man  and  his  Supreme 
Master,  to  take  the  place  of  God.  The  social 
character  of  Christianity  exacts  a  regulation  of 
external  worship  and  a  division  of  duty  in  the 
acts  which  constitute  it;  but  none  the  less  is 
there  a  direct  relation  between  God  and  all  those 
who,  under  different  titles,  participate  in  the 
symbolic  actions  of  Christian  ritual.  God  is  no 
farther  from  the  simple  believer  than  from  the 
bishop  or  the  priest.  Clerics  and  laity  come 
together  to  God,  pray  together,  are  sanctified  to- 
gether. There  is  between  them  only  a  "  diversity 
of  gifts  and  of  ministrations,"  as  St.  Paul  says,  but 
"  the  same  Spirit  "  *  is  in  all.  The  gospel  is  not 
the  enemy  of  order,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 
the  regular  economy  of  Divine  service  can  im- 
pede the  operation  of  the  grace  of  God. 

Every  religion  is  sacramental ;  every  religion  is 
1  1  Cor.  xii.  4,  5. 


266      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

also  more  or  less  deifying,  offering  man  a  means  of 
raising  himself  to  Divinity,  conceived  first  by 
analogy  in  the  image  of  man.  Perhaps  it  would 
not  be  very  difficult  to  prove  that  the  worship  of 
man  is,  in  all  known  religions,  associated  in  some 
way  with  that  of  God.  But  in  pagan  worship 
this  association  is  made  definitely,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  Divinity,  whose  essential  feature,  that  of 
remaining  infinitely  above  humanity,  is  not  recog- 
nized. Christianity  avoided  this  confusion,  while 
satisfying,  by  the  worship  of  Jesus  and  the  sacra- 
ments co-ordinated  therewith,  that  need  of  deifica- 
tion which  seems  inseparable  from  human  nature. 
It  renders  to  Christ  the  worship  the  Jews  rendered 
to  the  hidden  God,  Whom  no  human  being  could 
look  on  and  live.  It  has  been  able  to  do  so 
without  falling  into  Polytheism  or  man-worship, 
because  it  distinguishes,  in  the  object  of  its  adora- 
tion, the  Eternal  God  and  the  human  nature  in 
which  this  God  was  manifested  on  earth.  Christ 
is  none  the  less  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  and  humanity  is  raised  in  Him  up  to 
Divinity.  It  may  be  said  that  humanity  adores 
itself  in  Jesus,  but  it  must  be  added  that,  so 
doincT,  it  for^jets  neither  its  own  condition  nor  that 
of  God. 

Herr  Harnack  does  not  expressly  condemn  the 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  267 

worship  accorded  to  Christ,  but  he  regards  it  all 
the  same  as  a  kind  of  idolatry,  born  of  ancient 
polytheism.     For  him,  the  worship  of  Jesus  is  no 
more  legitimate  than  the  dogma  of  His  Divinity. 
Did  the  apostles  adore  Christ  even  when  they  had 
acquired  belief  in  His  resurrection  ?     Was  Jesus 
for  the  first  Christian  generation  any  other  than  a 
Divine  mediator,  with  Whom,  and  through  Whom, 
men  could  pray  to  and  worship  the  Father,  instead 
of  One  to  be   worshipped?     But  these   ckcum- 
stances  only  serve  to  make  more  evident  the  need 
of  a   worship  deifying   humanity,   since  from   a 
rio-orous   monotheism,   whose   formula    has    l)een 
strengthened  rather  than  weakened,  was  derived 
the   worship   of  a  human   being,   whose   human 
character  has   been    never    denied,    though   His 
Divinity  has  been  proclaimed;  while,  after  this. 
Christian  piety  has  made  for  itself  a  wliole  hier- 
archy of  intercessors  from   heavenly  spirits  and 
spiritual  ancestors,  as  though  to  aid  Christ  in  His 
position  of  intercessor,  and  at  the  head  of  them 
has  set  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Neither  the  worship  of  Christ  nor  the  worship 
of  the  saints  could  be  part  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus, 
nor  does  either  belong  to  it:  they  arose  sponta- 
neously, and  have  increased  one  after  the  other, 
and  then  together,  in  Christianity  as  it  became 


268  THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

established.  All  the  same,  the  worship,  both  of 
Jesus  and  of  the  saints,  proceeds  from  what  may 
be  called,  in  all  truthfulness,  the  primitive  revela- 
tion, the  revelation  that  has  never  been  specified 
in  a  formal  doctrine,  that  mankind  bears  in  the 
depths  of  its  religious  consciousness  written  in 
indistinct  characters.  The  sole  article  that  con- 
stitutes this  unexplained  revelation,  that  Jesus 
manifested  in  Himself  and  in  His  life  as  much  as 
in  His  teaching,  and  was  the  first  to  show  in  a 
clear  and  intelligible  manner  because  He  realized 
it  in  Himself,  is  that  God  reveals  Himself  to  man 
in  man,  and  that  humanity  enters  with  God  into 
a  Divine  association.  Man  had  always  believed 
it,  and  only  understood  it  vaguely ;  Jesus  made 
it  intelligible,  and  from  that  moment,  as  it  were, 
the  direction  of  prayer  was  changed,  and  the 
mythological  cloud  dissipated,  while  at  the  same 
time  the  barrier  of  law  and  verbal  revelation  was 
overthrown.  The  most  Divine  thing  in  the  world 
is  not  the  crash  of  the  thunder,  nor  the  light  of 
the  sun,  nor  the  unfolding  of  life ;  it  is  beauty  of 
soul,  purity  of  heart,  perfection  of  love  in  sacrifice, 
because  this  is  the  sovereign  gift  of  God  to  man, 
the  grandest  work  and  supreme  manifestation  of 
God  in  the  universe.  In  this  way  Jesus  revealed 
to  men  the  secret  of  God  and  religion,  because 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  269 

God  was  in  Him  revealing  Himself;  in  this  way- 
men  felt  that  in  Jesus  they  possessed  God  revealed 
to  them.  The  impression  was  deeper  among  the 
Gentiles,  who  knew  not  God,  than  among  the 
Jews,  who  knew  Him  better,  but  were  accustomed 
to  adore  Him  in  His  redoubtable  majesty.  It  is 
certain  that  the  eternal  principle  of  the  passage  of 
the  Divine  through  the  human  then  received  a 
new  application,  very  clear  and  very  fruitful,  that 
this  application  was  the  Christian  religion  and 
the  worship  of  Jesus,  and  that  it  could  be  nothing 
else. 

This  application  of  the  principle  itself  refused 
to  be  limited  to  the  worship  of  Christ.  All  those 
who  bore  witness  to  the  revelation  of  God  in 
Jesus,  who  had  not  feared  to  die  rather  than 
disavow  their  certainty,  who  had  demonstrated  its 
power  by  the  practice  of  Christian  virtues,  and 
had  died  in  the  peace  of  the  Lord,  all  these  equally 
received  on  their  foreheads  a  ray  of  Divinity.  It 
was  not  the  full  light,  the  unmeasured  communi- 
cation of  the  Spirit  and  of  the  glory  of  God,  but 
it  was  a  part  of  this  gift,  to  be  saluted  with 
reverence. 

In  fact,  it  is  as  an  extension  of  the  worship  of 
Jesus  that,  from  the  Catholic  point  of  view,  the 
worsliip  of  tlie  Virgin  and  the  saints  is  justified. 


270      THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

The  saints  live,  not  only  in  the  memory  of  the 
Church,  but  in  her  present  work,  by  the  lasting 
influence  of  their  personal  activity,  and  of  the 
ideal  signified  by  their  name.  Worship  of  them, 
like  that  of  the  Virgin  and  of  Christ  Himself,  has 
become  what  it  might  and  ought  to  have  become 
under  the  circumstances  and  in  the  times  where 
it  has  developed.  The  Christian  spirit  gave  life, 
and  still  gives  it,  to  practices  apparently  trivial, 
and  easily  becoming  superstitious  ;  but  the  point 
at  issue  is  whether  those  who  follow  them  do  not 
find  Christ  therein,  and  whether  they  would  be 
capable  of  finding  Him  more  easily  elsewhere. 
From  the  actual  point  of  view,  the  Virgin  and 
saints  are  religious  types  inferior  to  Christ,  but 
united  to  Him,  leading  to  Him,  acting  through 
Him  and  for  Him.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
theological  symbolism  and  popular  conception, 
Christ  alone  is  the  mediator,  all  powerful  by 
reason  of  His  Divinity;  the  Virgin  is  a  sub- 
ordinate intercessor  all-powerful  through  Christ; 
and  the  power  of  the  saints  is  equally  subordinated 
to  that  of  Jesus. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  government  of  this 
world,  even  of  moral  things,  should  not  be  divided 
into  provinces  according  to  specialities  which 
recall    a    little   too   vividly    the   lesser    gods    of 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  271 

paganism.    Yet  all  that  ever  was  has  an  eternal  life 
and  action  in  God,  wherein  all  things  abide.     He 
who  suppresses   intercession    is   on   the   way   to 
suppress  prayer.     Is  it  not  true  in  the  strictest 
sense    for   the   Catholic,    that    he    goes    to    God 
through  Jesus,  to  Jesus  through  the  saints  ?     Is 
it  not  true  that  Christianity  endures  by  the  force 
of  all  its  past,  from  Jesus  to  the  Christians  of  our 
own  day,  worthy  of  the  name  ?     Is  it  not  true 
that  all  the  fruits  of  tlie  gospel  in  Christianity 
are  still  the  gospel  ?     Is  it  not  true  that  to  have 
recourse  to  the  saints  is  to  have  recourse  to  Jesus 
— to  Jesus,  then  to  God ;  and  that  to  turn  to  God 
with  a  simple  faith  is  to  rise  above  one's  self,  to 
enter  into  religion  and  make  it  a  personal  reality  ? 
Is    it    not    true   that   by   all   those   means   the 
Protestant  finds  so  vulgar  and  so  ridiculous — by 
wearing  a  scapulary,  by  telling  beads,  by  gaining 
indulgences  on  the  merits  of  saints  for  this  life  or 
for  souls  in  Purgatory — the  Catholic  places  himself 
effectively  in  the  communion  of  the  saints,  which 
is  the  communion  of  Jesus,  which  is  the  commu- 
nion of  God  ? 

Assuredly  it  would  be  wise  to  moderate  tliis 
worship  in  some  of  its  manifestations,  and  above 
all  to  make  clear  its  real  siornificance.  The  general 
considerations  which  allow,   from    the    Christian 


272      THE   GOSPEL  AND    THE   CHURCH 

point  of  view,  prayers  of  intercession,  as  a  mean3 
of  attaching  the  soul  to  God  by  the  intermediary 
of  those  in  whom  God  was  especially  made  mani- 
fest, demand  also  that  these  prayers  should  be 
different  in  spirit  from  pagan  superstitions,  and 
should  not  be  sustained  by  wild  imaginations. 
After  all,  it  will  be  said,  if  St.  Antony  of  Padua 
has  not  really  the  power  to  cause  the  recovery  of 
things  that  are  lost,  the  winning  of  the  great  prize 
in  the  lottery,  the  gaining  of  diplomas  by  devout 
but  lazy  students,  it  is  possible  that  a  naive 
credulity  may  provide  the  hope  of  supernatural 
intervention  that  is  solicited  in  these  cases,  so 
that  the  religious  and  moral  value  of  such  prayers 
is  not  superior  to  that  of  the  requests  commonly 
addressed  to  pagan  deities :  far  better  recommend 
students  to  deserve  success  by  their  work,  advise 
all  to  look  to  their  affairs  and  count  at  once  on 
Providence  and  on  themselves  for  the  success  of 
their  enterprises. 

Nevertheless  the  apparent  puerilities  of  devotion 
are  less  removed  from  religion  than  they  seem. 
The  face  of  the  world  is  twofold.  Man  is  placed 
between  nature,  where  all  seems  inevitable,  and 
consciousness,  where  all  appears  free.  The  universe 
for  him  is  a  gigantic  mechanism,  which  encom- 
passes  him   on   all    sides,    and   will    overwhelm 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  273 

him  without  mercy  if  the  opportunity  arise ;  and, 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  the  revelation  that  a 
Being,  good  and  omnipotent,  gives  of  Himself. 
The  contradiction  evident  in  the  conduct  of  man 
demanding  to  be  freed  from  inevitability,  exists 
also  in  the  world,  where  necessity  and  liberty 
meet  in  opposition.  No  prayer  is  insignificaDt 
or  ridiculous  for  the  man  of  faith,  so  long  as  it 
does  not  misrepresent  God  in  His  goodness  and 
respects  His  sovereignty.  No  prayer  is  justified 
as  an  act  of  pure  reason  and  of  perfect  piety,  save 
by  the  uprightness  of  its  intentions,  its  applica- 
tion to  duty,  and  submission  to  the  Divine  will. 
Taken  solely  in  its  natural  and  primitive  signifi- 
cance, the  Lord's  Prayer  in  some  respects  would  be 
as  open  to  critical  objection  as  a  prayer  to  St. 
Antony  of  Padua  to  recover  an  object  that  has 
been  lost.  Would  not  the  demand,  "  Give  us  this 
day  our  daily  bread,"  considered  in  its  strict 
historical  meaning,^  be  subversive  of  social 
economy  ?  Practically,  as  a  general  rule,  the 
adult  healthy  man  can  and  should  earn  his  bread 
with  his  own  powers.  To-day,  the  Christian 
requests  that  this  activity  be  blessed  by  Heaven, 
but  the  original  sense  of  the  words  he  uses  was 
v^ery  different.     In  the  same  way  the  meaning  of 

*  Cf.  supra. 

T 


274       THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    CHURCH 

the  request,  "  Thy  Kingdom  come,"  is  very  different 
for  the  modern  Christian  from  the  sense  the  first 
converts  attached  to  it.  Thus  the  prayer  derives 
its  value  from  the  feeling  that  prompts  it  and 
determines  its  moral  efficacy,  not  from  the  occasion 
that  provokes  it,  not  even  from  the  good  to  which 
it  seems  directed.  This  efficacy  of  prayer  is  inde- 
pendent of  its  formal  fulfilment,  and  is  no  more  a 
matter  of  question  for  the  Christian  than  the 
personal  existence  of  God. 

It  must  not  be  imagined  that  sentence  of  con- 
demnation has  been  passed  on  the  worship  of 
saints,  of  relics,  of  the  Virgin,  and  of  the  Saviour 
Himself  because  such  worship  appears  to  the 
historian  as  a  concession  to  the  tendencies  of 
popular  religion.^  It  is  essential  that  every 
relii:rion  that  lives  should  be  a  concession  of  this 
kind,  though  Christianity  may  be  asked  to  raise 
the  character  of  the  concession  by  the  spirit  that 
informs  its  worship  and  its  practices.  The  ten- 
dencies in  question  are  a  fundamental  law  of 
religion,  and  a  condition  of  religious  development. 
All  is  well  so  long  as  the  forms  of  worship  are 
not  esteemed  beyond  and  at  the  expense  of  the 
spirit  that  should  animate  them.  The  Church  is 
unable  to  suppress  the  religious  instinct,  and  as 
1  Cf.  Newman,  "  Development." 


THE    CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  275 

little  dis})osed  to  leave  it  to  itself:  she  sets  out 
to  regulate  it,  and  devotions  are  to  her  a  means 
of  maintaining  religion.  The  piety  of  any  Catholic 
nation  does  not,  perhaps,  represent  the  ideal  of 
Catholicism,  but  it  is  all  that  Catholicism  can 
obtain  from  that  nation.  What  can  be  asked  of 
the  Church  beyond  a  constant  effort  to  obtain 
more  tlian  has  as  yet  been  given  ?  This  effort 
exists.  Herr  Harnack  recognizes  ^  that  devotions 
paid  to  the  Sacred  Heart,  the  Holy  Virgin,  and 
others,  have  become  in  the  Catliolic  Church  a 
source  of  blessing  and  a  means  of  reaching  the 
good  God.  This  is  because  the  Christian  spii^it 
has  penetrated  to  the  depth  of  the  devotion,  and 
set  the  gospel  there.  These  devotions,  far  from 
being  a  hindrance  to  religion,  are  a  support  to  it, 
just  as  the  sacraments  do  not  take  Christ  from 
the  believer,  but  give  Him. 

Protestant  critics,  when  they  express  surprise 
that  the  Christian  spirit  is  still  found  in  Catholi- 
cism in  spite  of  the  Church,  faith  in  spite  of 
dogma,  true  piety  in  spite  of  the  multiplication  of 
external  rites,  take  for  obstacles  the  real  guaran- 
tees and  normal  conditions  of  the  good  that  the 
gospel,  now  become  a  religion,  has  given  to 
the  world,  good  that  their  own  speculations  on 
*  "  Dogmengeschichte,"  iii.  G70,  n.  3. 


276       THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    CHURCH 

the  pure  essence  of  Christianity  are  unable  to 
procure.  Does  not  Protestantism  itself  exist  as 
a  religion  through  that  amount  of  ecclesiastical 
organization,  ofi&cial  doctrine,  and  confessional 
worship  that  it  has  retained  ? 

It  is  true  that  as  a  result  of  the  evolution, 
political,  intellectual,  economic,  of  the  modern 
world,  as  a  result  of  all  that  may  be  called  the 
modern  spiiit,  a  great  religious  crisis,  affecting 
Churches,  orthodoxies,  and  forms  of  worship  has 
arisen  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  everywhere.  The 
best  means  of  meeting  it  does  not  appear  to  be 
the  suppression  of  all  ecclesiastical  organization, 
all  orthodoxy,  and  all  traditional  worship — a  pro- 
cess that  would  thrust  Christianity  out  of  life  and 
humanity, — but  to  take  advantage  of  what  is,  in 
view  of  what  should  be,  to  repudiate  nothing  of 
the  heritage  left  to  our  age  by  former  Christian 
centuries,  to  recognize  how  necessary  and  useful 
is  the  immense  development  accomplished  in  the 
Church,  to  gather  the  fruits  of  it  and  continue  it, 
since  the  adaptation  of  the  gospel  to  the  changing 
conditions  of  humanity  is  as  pressing  a  need 
to-day  as  it  ever  was  and  ever  will  be.  It  is  no 
part  of  the  present  book  to  say  what  difficulties — 
more  apparent,  perhaps,  than  real — this  work 
may  encounter  in  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  what 


THE   CATHOLIC    WORSHIP  277 

incomparable  resources  exist  for  it,  nor  in  what 
way  the  agreement  of  dogma  and  science,  reason 
and  faith,  the  Church  and  society,  can  be  conceived 
to-day.  This  little  volume  is  full  enough  if  it  has 
shown  how  Christianity  has  lived  in  the  Church 
and  by  the  Church,  and  how  futile  is  the  desire 
to  save  it  by  a  search  after  its  quintessence. 


THE   END 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO-i-^     202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
-     HOME  USE 

2                     : 

3 

4 

5                                ( 

5 

ALL  BOOK^^AY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  PAYS 

^ear  loans  rr^ay  'L.  .cc^v  j-..  ->  o^f^.o;:;.  t-:^?  Locks  ic  tne  CircuJalion  Desk 
— ,—  ^anaivaia  and  recMcr-oec-  rr:sy  bo  triacie  4  days  orior  to  due  date 

RECEIVED  BY 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

J  UN  1 1  "juc 

c; 

CIRCULATION  D 

k 

NOV  27  1985 

•  • 

SGGLCII.     NOV      8^98 

5 

APR  /    ?no 

' 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

®$ 


f 


GENERAL  LIBRARY    U.C.  BERKELEY 


8000207227 


